Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) Heard Sri Gulab Chandra, for the petitioners, Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, for the respondent-bank.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal, dated 20.12.2017, declining to register the application of the petitioners under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. for permitting them to sue their application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as an indigent person, on the ground that neither the Act nor the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, provides any provision for registration of the application as an indigent person.
(3.) Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 confers jurisdiction to Civil Court to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognisance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Order 33 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, permits a person to sue as an indigent person (a) if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or (b) where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit. Detailed procedure has been provided under Order 33 C.P.C. to determine the issue as to whether the person is indigent person or not. If the person is found as an indigent, he can be permitted to sue without payment of the Court Fee. Order 33 Rule 10, 11 and 11-A C.P.C. provides for recovery of Court Fee, after disposal of the suit. Supreme Court in R.V. Dev v. Chief Secy., Govt. of Kerala, 2007 5 SCC 698, held that payment of court fee as the scheme suggests is merely deferred. It is not altogether wiped off.;