Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 991 (MP)

Krishna Gupta v. Santosh Gupta

2017-09-11

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2017
ORDER 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.4.2017 whereby the petitioner’s application under section 35 of Court-fees Act for permission to sue as pauper has been rejected. 2. In brief the petitioner had filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction and valued it at Rs.18,75,000/- on which court-fee of Rs.1,50,000/- was payable. Petitioner had filed an application in terms of notification dated 1.4.1983 claiming that income of petitioner is less than Rs. 6,000/- (Rs.25,000/- as amended by notification dated 14.2.2011), therefore, the petitioner is entitled for exemption from payment of court-fee and trial Court having reached to the conclusion that petitioner has sufficient means to pay the court-fee has rejected the said application. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the petitioner’s application. He further submits that since income of petitioner is less than Rs.25,000/- per annum, and the petitioner is woman, therefore, she should be granted benefit of exemption from payment of Court fee. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the record it is noticed that in terms of notification dated 1.4.1983 issued under section 35 of Court-fees Act certain categories of persons including women having annual income preceding the date of presentation of plaint from all sources not exceeding Rs.6,000/- are exempted from payment of court-fee. The said notification has been amended vide notification dated 14.2.2011 and limit of Rs.6,000/- p.a. has been enhanced to Rs.25,000/- p.a. 5. The Court below has duly taken note of requirement of the aforesaid amended notification. 6. The impugned order reveals that the report was called from the concerned Collector in respect of financial status of the petitioner. In that report it was found that petitioner along with her husband Keshavlal has a personal house and the annual income of petitioner is Rs.3,00,000/-. The said report was submitted on the basis of report of Patwari which also reveals that petitioner along with her husband is having a double storied house in which the ground floor is utilized for tenancy. The estimated value of the house is Rs.40,00,000/-. It has further been found that petitioner’s husband is a retired employee who is earning monthly pension of Rs.25,000/-. 7. The estimated value of the house is Rs.40,00,000/-. It has further been found that petitioner’s husband is a retired employee who is earning monthly pension of Rs.25,000/-. 7. That apart the Court below has also noted that just five months prior to filing of the present suit, the petitioner had received Rs.5,00,000/- in execution Case No.2B/2010 in pursuance to the compromise arrived at on 18.3.2011. In the said execution case cheque of Rs.1,11,000/- was also received in the name of petitioner’s son. In that case petitioner was the decreeholder. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, the trial Court has not committed any error in holding that income of petitioner is more than Rs.25,000/- p.a. and petitioner is not entitled for exemption from payment of court-fee. 9. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is a well reasoned order which does not suffer from any error. 10. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon Single Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Ramkishan v. Devilal and another, reported in 1991 JLJ 370 , but in that case the trial Court had found the annual income of plaintiff before filing of the suit to be less than Rs. 6,000/-, hence benefit was extended. Similarly in the matter of Rashidabai v. Smt. Manju and others in Writ Petition No.4048/2016 vide order dated 2.11.2016 the trial Court was directed to reconsider the application because the application was rejected solely on the plea of advancing sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent. Both the aforesaid judgments are distinguishable on their own facts, therefore, benefit of these judgments cannot be granted to the petitioner. 11. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , has held that High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. The High Court can exercise this power when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid, no case for interference in the present writ petition is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.