- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47083 CRP No. 202 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 202 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SHREE VISHWAKARMA VIDHYAVARDHAKA SANGHA (R), AN ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT OPPOSITE YOUTH HOSTEL, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SRI. T. NAGARAJ PRESIDENT SHRE VISHWAKARMA VIDHYAVARDHAKA SANGHA (R) AN ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, OPPOSITE YOUTH HOSTEL, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 009. 3. SRI. B. NARASIMHA MURTHY VICE PRESIDENT SHREE VISHWAKARMA VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA AS ASSOCIATION REGISTER UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT OPPOSITE YOUTH HOSTEL Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47083 CRP No. 202 of 2020 SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 009. 4. SRI. K. SOMASHEKAR TREASURER SHRE VISHWAKARMA VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA AS ASSOCIATION REGISTER UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT OPPOSITE YOUTH HOSTEL SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 009. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. F.V. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANIK RAO PUNNEYAPPA PODDAR S/O SRI. PUNNEYAPPA PODDAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4-191, SARAF BAZAR MUKTHAMPUR, KALABURGI - 585 101. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU - 570 022. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALBURGI DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALBURGI - 585 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMSHITH HEGDE H.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47083 CRP No. 202 of 2020 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2020 PASSED IN MISC.NO.48/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT MYSURU ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 33 RULE 1 OF CPC., SEEKING LEAVE OF THE COURT TO INSTITUTE THE SUIT AS AN INDIGENT PERSON BY DISPENSING THE PAYMENT OF COURT FEE ON THE PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri.Amshith Hegde H. S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Bhojegouda T. Koller, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Respondents in Miscellaneous No.48/2015 are the revision petitioners challenging the order of the Trial Court permitting the respondent in the present case to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47083 CRP No. 202 of 2020 proceed with the suit without paying the Court fee by declaring the respondent as an indigent person. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition as under: 3.1. Respondent No.1 in the present case filed a suit and a petition under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to permit respondent No.1 to proceed with the suit without paying the Court fee by declaring that respondent No.1 is an indigent person. 3.2. A proper enquiry was held by the Trial Court pursuant to the request made by respondent No.1 after notifying the present revision petitioners and the District Government Pleader. 3.3. After considering the rival contention of the parties and also holding an enquiry, learned Trial judge has noted that respondent No.1 is unable to pay the Court fee and mere fact that son of respondent No.1 is employed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47083 CRP No. 202 of 2020 as an engineer and also possessing six acres of the land would not be a ground to deny that respondent No.1 is possessing sufficient means to pay the Court fee by following the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Sumathykutty Amma Kamalamma and Others v. Narayani Panikkathy Karthiyayani and Others reported in AIR 1973 Ker 19. 3.4. The learned Trial Judge also took into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 2002 (1) CLJ 391, held that respondent No.1 has no means to pay the requisite Court fee to proceed with the suit. 3.5. Necessarily, there will be a charge on the property, if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, to pay the Court fee. 4. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47083 CRP No. 202 of 2020 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that when son of respondent No.1 is having income of Rs.40,000/- per month and there is also an agricultural income from the six acres of the land, the plaintiff ought not to have been declared as indigent person by way of impugned order by the Trial Court resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that though the son of respondent No.1 is working as an engineer and also six acres of the agricultural land is possessed by respondent No.1, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47083 CRP No. 202 of 2020 income from those would not be sufficient enough to pay the Court fee for a suit claim of Rs.83,00,000/-. 9. While considering the means of a particular person to pay the Court fee, Courts are expected to give due discount towards the maintenance of the family, food, clothing etc. 10. Surplus of money if any, is available which would be sufficient enough to pay the Court fee, then only the permission to declare a person as an indigent person can be denied by the Court. 11. In the case on hand, revision petitioners have not been able to place any material to show that respondent No.1 had sufficient means and by suppressing such means, he has approached the Court seeking to declare him as an indigent person. 12. Under such circumstances, impugned order needs no interference by this Court in this revision. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47083 CRP No. 202 of 2020 13. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT:BHK