- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21498 CP No. 254 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 254 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT SWAPNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O SRINIVAS, RESIDENT AT NO. 1576, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SANJEVININAGARA, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560092. MOBILE PHONE NO. 9902024570 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIRAM BABU A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAMPANGI RAMASWAMY G ALIAS RAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O GENESHAPPA, MOBILE NO. 966843878 2. SMT SUSANRAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O SAMPANGIRAMASWAMY G ALIAS RAJU 3. MARY SELVAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O SAMPANGIRAMASWAMY G ALIAS RAJU 4. ABRAHAM SELVAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SAMPANGIRAMASWAMY G ALIAS RAJU RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21498 CP No. 254 of 2024 RESIDING AT SAME ADDRESS DOOR NO. 1576, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SANJEVININAGARA, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560092 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S OFFICE BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRANESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE TO R1 TO R4) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 44 RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO PERMIT HER TO PROSECUTE THE ANNEXED REGULAR FIRST APPEAL AS AN INDIGENT PERSON AND TREAT THIS RFA 1091/24 AS INDIGENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 19081 to permit the petitioner to prosecute in RFA.No.1091/2024 before this Court as an indigent person. 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘CPC’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21498 CP No. 254 of 2024 2. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. A Sriram Babu appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri. Pranesh Chandra appearing for the respondents. 3. It is forthcoming that the petitioner had instituted OS.No.7298/2015 before the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36)2 for declaration and possession. The respondents were arrayed as defendants in the said suit. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2024 dismissed the said suit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred RFA.No.1091/2024. Since, the petitioner was unable to pay Court fee on the said appeal, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. 4. The respondents entered appearance in the present proceedings and filed objections contending, inter alia that the petitioner has means to pay the Court fee. That the petitioner and her children were gainfully employed. That a portion of the property which is occupied by the petitioner has been let-out for community service (church) and that she is fetching monthly rentals from the same. 2 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Trial Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21498 CP No. 254 of 2024 5. This Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to submit a report regarding the solvency of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Tahsildar of Yelahanka Taluk has submitted a report dated 13.03.2025 whereunder the Tahsildar has opined that neither the petitioner nor her children have the means to pay the Court fee. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: 6.1 In the case of AA HAJA MUNIUDDIAN V/S INDIAN RAILWAYS3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “5. …………. It is, therefore, essential that the provisions of the Act and the Rules must be broadly interpreted to ensure access to justice. If a claimant is left without redress even if he has a valid claim against the railway administration merely because he is an indigent person, it would be a sad day and the poor will lose confidence in the system. No one can be heard to say, much less the railway administration, that even though the claimant has a genuine claim for compensation against the railway administration, he must forgo the same if he does not have the means to pay the requisite fee. Such an interpretation which denies justice must be avoided. Section 18(1) only says that the Claims Tribunal 'shall not be bound' by the procedure laid down by the Code but does not go so far as to say that it 'shall be precluded' from invoking the provisions laid down by the 3 “AIR 1993 SC 361” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21498 CP No. 254 of 2024 Code even if the same is not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules. Since the Claims Tribunal is empowered to regulate its own procedure, there is nothing in the Act and the Rules which precludes the invocation of Order XXXIII of the Code. A view which advances the cause of justice must be preferred to the one which defeats it.” 6.2 In the case of JANAK KUMARI V/S LAND ACQUISITAION OFFICER AND ANR4 the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as follows: “5. The provision contained in Order 33, Rule 1, CPC requires an inquiry into the financial condition of a person who applies to sue in forma pauperis. The explanation to Order 33, Rule 1 defines a pauper to be a person who is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay fees prescribed by law. It is, therefore, obvious that the inquiry has to be into the means of the person who applies to sue as a indigent person. The Collector has not certified that the present applicant has any source of income and is possessed of any means or sufficient realisable property from which she could arrange for payment of court-fees. The report is based on the irrelevant and extraneous consideration.” 7. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that that the petitioner has been receiving monthly rent from the church which is located in a portion of the undisputed portion of the property of the 4 “AIR 2002 MP 253” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21498 CP No. 254 of 2024 petitioner, no material in that regard has been produced in support of the said contention. 8. In view of the fact that the report dated 13.03.2025 of the Tahsildar is also in favour of the petitioner, it is just and proper that the relief sought for by the petitioner in the above petition be granted. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The above petition is allowed; ii. The petitioner be permitted to prosecute RFA.No.1091/2024 before this Court as an indigent person; iii. Registry to list RFA.No.1091/2024 before the Court having roster of the matter. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PNV- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11