- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dt. 11/08/2010 as well as order dt.17/10/2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby the trial court has permitted the respondent No.1-plaintiff to sue as an indigent person.
(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondents No.2 and 3- original defendants, in which she had applied for permitting her to sue as an indigent person. The trial court vide the order dt.11/08/2010 permitted her to sue as an indigent person. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-defendant filed review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC before the trial court. The said review application has also been dismissed by the trial court vide order dt. 17/10/2011. Hence the petitioner-defendant has filed the present petition. It has been submitted by Mr.SC Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that though the respondent NO.1-plaintiff had sufficient means to pay the court fees, she has been permitted to sue as an indigent person. According to him, the respondent NO.1-plaintiff is receiving Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance and, therefore, it could not be said that she does not have the sufficient means to pay the court fees. Mr .Raj Kamal Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff has supported the orders passed by the trial court and submitted that the court, after making necessary inquiry, had permitted the the respondent NO.1-plaintiff to sue as an indigent person and this court should not interfere with the impugned orders. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned orders passed by the trial court, it appears that initially the trial court had dismissed the application of the respondent No.1-plaintiff for permitting her to sue as an indigent person, however, after the order passed by the High Court, inquiry was conducted by the Collector regarding the financial status of the respondent No.1-plaintiff, and after considering the report of the Collector and Patwari, the trial court had allowed the application of the respondent No.1-plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. There being no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 11/08/2010 and so also the order dt. 17/10/2011 passed by the trial court, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) THERE being no substance in the petition, the petition is dismissed.;