JUDGMENT : (Prayer: MP.No.1 of 2015 is filed to pass an order permitting me to present and prosecute the appeal as an indigent person.) This Miscellaneous Petition under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, is filed to permit the petitioner to present and prosecute the appeal as an indigent person. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner / appellant is the defendant in the original suit and therefore, he has chosen to file the present petition as he is not in a position to pay the Court fee in the First Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the usual procedure is that the Court will direct the learned Government Pleader to get a certificate of indigency and based on such certificate, the Court will permit the person to file the suit as an indigent person. The practice seems to be little curious as the Court cannot ask the learned Government Pleader to get a certificate, which is unacceptable and not in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to understand the provision for granting such permission to file the First Appeal as an indigent person, this Court has to rely Order 33 Rule 5 & 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 33 Rule 1 stipulates that suits may be instituted by indigent person. 4. Order 33 Rule 5 speaks about Rejection of Application. Accordingly, the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person. Order 33 Rule 1 stipulates that suits may be instituted by indigent person. 4. Order 33 Rule 5 speaks about Rejection of Application. Accordingly, the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person. (a) where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3, or (b) where the applicant is not an [indigent persons], or (c) where he has, within two months next before the presentation of the application, disposed of any property fraudulently or in order to be able to apply for permission to sue as an [indigent person]: [Provided that no application shall be rejected if, even after the value of the property disposed of by the applicant is taken into account, the applicant would be entitled to sue as an indigent person] or (d) where his allegations do not show a cause of action, or (e) where he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject-matter, [or] [(f) where the allegations made by the applicant in the application show that the suit would be barred by any law for the time being in force, or (g) where any other person has entered into an agreement with him to finance the litigation.] 5. Order 33 Rule 6 contemplates Notice of day for receiving evidence of applicant's indigency— Where the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in rule 5, it shall fix a day (of which at least ten day's clear notice shall be given to the opposite party and the Government pleader) for receiving such evidence as the application may adduce in proof of his indigency, and for hearing any evidence, which may be adduced in disproof thereof. 6. Let us consider the spirit of Order 33 Rule 6, wherein the Court contemplates if there is no reason to reject any application under Rule 5, then Court shall fix a day of which at least ten day's clear notice shall be given to the opposite party and the learned Government Pleader for receiving such evidence as the application may adduce in proof of his indigency. Thus, it is unambiguous that the person, who is filing an application, seeking permission to sue, must adduce in proof of his indigency and for hearing any evidence, which may be adduced in disproof thereof. The opposite parties are also entitled to disprove the claim of the petitioner for the purpose of establishing that the person, who filed application, is not an indigent person or approached the Court with unclean hands. Therefore, Order 33 Rule 6 enumerates that both the parties to the suit must be provided with an opportunity either to prove indigency or to disprove the indigency. Under these circumstances, question of any assistance by the Court concerned would not arise at all. If at all for the parties, who are seeking such permission, must establish their indigency and it is not the duty of the Court to direct the learned Government Pleader or any other authority to get an indigent certificate from the Revenue authorities or from any other competent authority. Court cannot play any role in the matter of issuance of indigency certificate for the benefit of any of the parties to the suit. It is for the parties to establish their indigency by producing necessary documents and evidences and by providing opportunity to the other side to disprove the documents and evidences. Under these circumstances, a trial natured enquiry is required for the purpose of ascertaining the indigency of a person, so as to grant exemption from payment of Court fee by the Courts. However, these practice is not strictly followed and it is brought to the notice of this Court that always the learned Government Pleader are directed to get the indigency certificate and based on such certificates, the litigants are granted permission to file suit without paying the Court fee as an indigent person. Such a practice can never be approved as the same is in violation of Order 33 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is for the parties to establish through evidences and proof. Opportunities available to the other side to disprove the claim of the person regarding his indigency or otherwise is also contemplated. Such a practice can never be approved as the same is in violation of Order 33 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is for the parties to establish through evidences and proof. Opportunities available to the other side to disprove the claim of the person regarding his indigency or otherwise is also contemplated. This being the spirit of Order 33 Rule 6, this Court is of an opinion that it is for the petitioner to establish his indigency either through the evidences available with him or to implead the Revenue authorities, so as to get a certificate by issuing a direction to the competent authorities to conduct an enquiry and accordingly, cull out the truth and issue certificate regarding indigency of a person. 7. These two circumstances are possible with reference to the spirit of Order 33 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Firstly, if any person submits an application under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission of the Court to institute a suit as an indigent person, he himself can obtain an indigent certificate from the competent authorities of the Government Department and mark the same before the Court as a document and adduce evidences to establish the indigency. Even in such circumstances, the opposite party is entitled for an opportunity to rebut the said contentions, documents or evidences and to disprove the correctness or otherwise. If necessary, the Court can also verify the genuinity of such certificates obtained from the revenue officials. If such a decision is taken, then the Court is well within its powers to seek the assistance of the learned Government Pleader for the limited purpose of verifying the genuinity of the indigency certificates issued by the competent authorities of the Government. 8. Secondly, any person approaching the Court under Order 44 Rule 1, seeking permission to institute suit as an indigent person shall implead the competent revenue authorities for the purpose of conducting an enquiry and to issue indigent certificate. 8. Secondly, any person approaching the Court under Order 44 Rule 1, seeking permission to institute suit as an indigent person shall implead the competent revenue authorities for the purpose of conducting an enquiry and to issue indigent certificate. In such an event, the authority competent must be impleaded as a party in the petition, facilitating the learned Government Pleader to appear on behalf of such revenue authorities, which would enable the Court to direct the learned Government Pleader, so as to instruct the competent authorities to conduct an enquiry by affording opportunity to the parties and issue an indigent certificate, if he is otherwise entitled and established the same. Even in such circumstances, the opposite party is entitled to disprove the certificate, if the opposite party is able to produce documents or evidences. Thus, the indigency of a person is to be decided on adjudication with reference to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Court cannot direct the learned Government Pleader to get a certificate from the revenue officials regarding the indigency of a person, so as to facilitate such a person to institute a suit as an indigent person. 9. The two probabilities narrated above, shall be adopted for the purpose of granting permission to institute the suit as an indigent person. This Court is of the considered opinion that any other procedures being followed, which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be accepted nor be approved, enabling a person to institute a suit as an indigent person. It is for the person, who approaches the Court to establish his indigency. 10. The procedures in this regard are to be followed scrupulously by the Civil Courts across the State and under these circumstances, the Registrar General, High Court of Madras, is directed to communicate this order to all the Civil Courts across the State of Tamil Nadu and Government of Puducherry, enabling all such Courts to follow the procedures in respect of the applications filed under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. As far as the present appeal suit on hand is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition pleads that the case shall be referred to the Master Court for the purpose of adducing evidences. 11. As far as the present appeal suit on hand is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition pleads that the case shall be referred to the Master Court for the purpose of adducing evidences. Thus, the petitioner has chosen to adduce evidences before the Master Court in order to prove his indigency. Accordingly, an opportunity is provided to the petitioner to place the evidences before the Master Court for the purpose of considering his application filed, seeking permission to institute the appeal suit as an indigent person against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.10.2014 in O.S.No.28/2011. 12. Accordingly, this petition shall be posted before the learned Master of the High Court of Madras to record evidences and after completion, post the matter before Court for further consideration. The learned Master is requested to complete the process of recording evidences within a period of three weeks and Post the matter before this Court. 13. List the matter for further consideration on 13.01.2020.