JUDGMENT Heard Shri Gangwal, learned counsel for the appellant, who made two submissions, (1) that the appellant is a member of weaker section and therefore is entitled for getting exemption from payment of Court-fee. His prayer for sueing as an indigent person has not been considered by the Court. Learned counsel placed reliance of a case of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1988, Laxmi Narayan v. Madan Mohan and another in C.R. No. 195 of 1986 at page No. 142. In paragraph No. 2 of the Judgment, Single Bench pointed out the category of the person who are entitled to get exemption in view of notification of the State. In paragraph No. 7, the Single Bench of this Court observed : "I have no doubt that Cl. (viii) of Notification 'A' is meant to be read as a residuary clause to cover cases of such classes of citizens who suffer social disability in other ways making it obligatory for the State to take care of their weaker position in society, to protect them against exploitation. The maxim, Noscitur a sociis, lends support to such an interpretation. Indeed, what is the object of the Notification is also to be kept in view in interpreting the expression "Weaker sections of the society." This judgment does not held the appellant at all. What the learned Judge in the matter of Laxmi Narayan v. Madan Mohon and another (supra) has observed is that the benefit of notification can be given to such person who is suffering a "social disability". That is a totally different aspect. A person who is suffering with such a disability and social exploitation deserves the benefit. In that matter a person who was making such a prayer was from Mali community falling in category of "backward class" as informed. A person from Maheshwari caste and community is treated to be at higher level of society, undoubtedly, the status of that community and social progress is good and it is not suffering any social disability. Therefore, the argument submitted by the counsel is dismissed. However, the grievance submitted by him that Court did not entertain prayer of the appellant for granting him permission to sue as an indigent person is upheld. The learned Judge has not considered this aspect and has not made legal enquiry which needs to be made. Therefore, the argument submitted by the counsel is dismissed. However, the grievance submitted by him that Court did not entertain prayer of the appellant for granting him permission to sue as an indigent person is upheld. The learned Judge has not considered this aspect and has not made legal enquiry which needs to be made. The learned Judge is directed to make an enquiry about the total income of the appellant by making a legal enquiry and to pass legal order. The appellant to appear before the concerned Court II A.D.J., Ratlam on 18.4.1995.