- (1.) Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal and also the order dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Judge, Kaithal, declining the prayer of plaintiff-petitioner to sue as an indigent person under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
(2.) The petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 30.5.2008 is null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-petitioner and in alternative, a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondents to pay the balance amount of the sale consideration as per agreement to sell dated 10.4.2008 @ Rs. 13,90,000/- per acre. In terms of the agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed by 30.5.2008 on receipt of balance sale consideration. The sale deed pertains to the total land measuring 39 kanals 18 marlas. However, the sale deed was executed for a total sale consideration of Rs. 34,90,000/- by including the amount of Rs. 10 lacs received as earnest money paid at the time of executing the agreement to sell. The defendant-respondents contested the suit by filing written statement. It was stated that soon thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner had invested the amount in purchasing land in the name of his wife Kulwant Kaur and his daughters-in-law, out of the sale proceeds in respect of the suit land. It was also stated that the agreement was in fact relating to the land as well as the residential house but the sale deed was executed only in respect of the land. The respondents thus, had to file a suit for enforcement of the agreement to sell the house. That suit was pending in the Court at Kaithal.
(3.) It is interesting to note that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner on 12.8.2008 without a whisper in the plaint that the petitioner was an indigent person. In fact, the respondents moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that ad valorem Court fee has not been affixed on the plaint. The trial Court vide order dated 11.8.2010, directed the petitioner to pay the ad valorem Court fee on the consideration of sale mentioned in the sale deed dated 30.5.2008 and also on the amount of Rs. 2 lacs. That order was assailed by the petitioner by filing CR-5906-2010, (Jit Singh @ Ajit Singh Vs. Joginder Kaur and another) which was dismissed by this Court on 14.9.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for permission to sue him as indigent person on 1.10.2010, probably because the issue raised by the defendant-respondents was that the suit is not maintainable and not properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction of Court. The trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) as there was no allegation in support of the indigency of the petitioner in the plaint itself and the application was filed during he pendency of the suit simply to avoid depositing of Court fee. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P-4).;