1 2025:CGHC:45193 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 876 of 2025  Manmati D/o Jhirga Das Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sahanpur, Block Lundra, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sumniya Yadav W/o Mahojar Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sahanpur, Block Lundra, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) 2. Mahojar Yadav S/o Ramdhani Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sahanpur, Block Lundra, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 04-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 158-A/2021 dated 24.06.2025 whereby application under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC moved by Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.04 17:52:06 +0530 2 petitioner has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner/ plaintiff instituted a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to suit property mentioned in the plaint. Ad-valorem Court Fee of Rs. 24,000/- was required to be paid but financial condition of plaintiff was not good, therefore plaintiff moved an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC to sue as an “indigent person”. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.06.2025, rejected the application so moved by plaintiff holding that earlier while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC moved by defendants, plaintiff was directed to affix court fee of Rs. 24,000/- within 30 days, therefore application was dismissed in light of provisions of Rules 2 and 5(a) of Order 33 of CPC. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff submits that petitioner has no source of income and she has no movable or immovable property in her name, therefore she moved application to sue as an indigent person. He further submits that learned Trial Court ought to have conducted inquiry whether or not the petitioner is an indigent person but without conducting any inquiry, order impugned has been passed which is bad in law. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the order impugned. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Undisputedly, an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC was 3 moved by the petitioner/ plaintiff wherein details of property as illuminated under Order 33 Rule 2 of CPC have not been given. The learned Court below without inquiring into the financial status of plaintiff, rejected the application holding that while deciding the application moved by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, plaintiff was directed to affix appropriate court fee within period of 30 days and provisions of Rules 2 and 5 of Order 33 have not been complied with. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The petitioner/ plaintiff would be at liberty to move an application afresh in accordance with Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC. In the eventuality of filing such application, learned Trial Court is directed to decide the same strictly in accordance with the provisions of Order 33 of CPC within further period of three months. 8) Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a