JUDGMENT This appeal under O. 33 R. 1-Expl. (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant against the order of 7th Additional District Judge, Indore, in Misc. Judl. Case No. 38/81 decided on 3.11.1988; whereby the appellant's application filed under Or. 33 R. 1 C.P.C. seeking leave to sue as an indigent person has been rejected. The appellant brought an action against the respondents claiming amount of compensation on account of defamation and malicious prosecution and claimed a total amount of Rs. 40,000/- against them. She was required to pay a court-fee of Rs. 3,600/- on the plaint. Since she found herself unable to pay the court-fees she filed a suit as an indigent person giving details of the property owned by her. During the pendency of the said enquiry she also filed an application claiming advantage of the notification issued by the Government of M.P. No. F. No. 9.1-83-B-XXI dated 1.4.83 and claimed that since she is a widow whose earning does not exceed Rs. 6,000/- p.a. and therefore she should be exempted from payment of court-fees. From perusal of the record it appears that the said application was filed by the appellant after passing of the impugned order. The Court has ample power to take cognizance of subsequent events that may be brought to the notice of the Court. But no order appears to have been passed on the said application; may be on account of interim stay granted in favour of the appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also heard Shri K.K. Gupta, Govt. Advocate on the point involved in the appeal. On the application of the appellant being filed the matter was sent for enquiry. The Additional Collector, Indore who held the enquiry had found that the appellant is an indigent person and, therefore, she shall not be in a position to pay the Court fee. For conducting the enquiry evidence of the appellant was also recorded and a memo was prepared mentioning therein that the appellant is a poor widow lady and has no means to pay the court-fees at the time of the filing of said Misc. Judl. Case. Trial Court had also recorded evidence of the appellant as to prima facie he satisfied about the financial status of the appellant and then only the application was registered as such. Judl. Case. Trial Court had also recorded evidence of the appellant as to prima facie he satisfied about the financial status of the appellant and then only the application was registered as such. After receiving the enquiry report from the Additional Collector the same were taken on record. Both the parties did not lead any further evidence. Though the respondents filed reply to the appellant's application under Or. 33 R. 1 of C.P.C. giving details of certain properties but did not adduce any evidence to support their version. The appellant also did not lead any further evidence as she was already examined earlier at the time of the registration and in the meanwhile enquiry reports had also come and were taken on record. Despite all these, the trial Court illegally rejected the application of the appellant to grant her leave to sue as an indigent person. It also appears from the impugned order that the oral prayer was also made before the passing of order bringing to the notice of the learned trial Judge about the notification dated 1.4.83 issued by the Government of M.P. exempting certain class of people but it was also not thought fit by the trial Court to grant necessary and appropriate relief to the appellant on such oral request. Accordingly her application was rejected. In a welfare State such provisions are enacted and notifications are issued with an intention to see that the poor, and needy persons are not deprived of approaching the Court for redressal of their grievances for want of means to pay court-fees. Liberal view of the matter should have been taken. During the hearing of the appeal the enquiry report of the Addl. Collector Indore was brought to the notice of the Government Advocate Shri K.K. Gupta who was also unable to say anything in rebuttal. Needless to say that the matter of court-fees is between the State and the appellant-litigant the respondent has nothing to gain or loose except that the proceedings can be delayed in the matter. The appellant who as mentioned the details of her properties which are not sufficient to enable her to pay the court-fees. There is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the appellant in her application. More so when the respondents have not produced any evidence in rebuttal, to show that the appellant is possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fees. There is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by the appellant in her application. More so when the respondents have not produced any evidence in rebuttal, to show that the appellant is possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fees. Consequently I allow the appeal with costs, set aside the impugned order and grant exemption to the appellant from payment of court-fees. The suit was filed in the year 1981. More than 14 years have already passed and the suit has not yet proceeded. It is, therefore, desired that the trial Court shall try to dispose of the suit on merit as expeditiously as possible. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-, if certified.