2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 767 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 714



The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik

Civil Revision No. 8761 of 2015 (O&M)

Shalender Kumar & Anr.


Umesh Kumar Mittal & Ors.

Decided on 01/02/2017

For the Petitioners:                         Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate.

For the Respondents No.1 & 2:        Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3:                   Ms. Jasleen Chandhok, Advocate.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.44 R.1– Indigent Person-Once the petitioners have been found to be person of means, having regular monthly source of income-­ Application ought to be dismissed.                                                             (Para 7)


  1. Santa v. Jarnail Singh, 2010 (5) Law Herald 3962. (Para 5)
  2. Padmausundara Rao & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2002 (3) SCC 533. (Para 6)
  3. Union of India v. Amrit Lai Manchanda & Ors., 2004 (3) SCC 75. (Para 6)
  4. State of Orissa v. Md. Illiyas, 2006 (1) SCC 275. (Para 6)
  5. State of Rajasthan v. Ganeshi Lai, 2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 275. (Para 6)


Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) – Present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 6.11.2015 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional District Judge, whereby application of the petitioners moved under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to file appeal as indigent persons, was dismissed.

  1. Notice of motion was issued.
  2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
  3. Relevant part of the impugned order passed by learned first appellate court, reads as under:-

“There is an application under Order 44 Rule 1CPC seeking permission to file the appeal as indigent persons. Appellant No. 1 Shalender Kumar, present in Court, made statement to the effect that he is employed at a shop and use to repair bags and getting Rs. 85, OO/- per month as salary. Appellant No. 2 Ravi Shankar, present in Court, also made statement to the effect that he is working in a factory, which manufactures surgical instruments and getting Rs. 7000- per month as salary. Considering the statements made by appellants, this Court is of the view that appellants are in a position to pay the Court fee and they cannot be allowed to pursue their appeal as indigent persons. Accordingly, application is dismissed. Case is adjourned to 5.12.2015.”

  1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any patent
    illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference at the hands of this
    Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. So far as judgment of this Court in Santa Vs. Jamail
    Singh, 2010 (5) Law Herald 3962, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned,
    there is no dispute about the observations made therein. However, a close perusal of the cited
    judgment would show that it is of no help to the petitioners, being distinguishable on facts.
  2. It is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered
    and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judge made law thereto. Sometimes,
    difference of even one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference, as held
    by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmausundara Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil
    Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533, Union of India Vs. Amrit Lai Manchanda and
    others, 2004 (3) SCC 75, State of Orissa Vs. Md. Illiyas, 2006 (1) SCC 275 and State of
    Rajasthan VS. Ganeshi Lai, [2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 275]: 2008 (2) SCC 533.
  3. Once the petitioners have been found to be persons of means, having regular monthly
    source of income, learned first appellate court was well within its jurisdiction to pass the
    impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld. Under the circumstances of the case,
    noticed herein above, it can be safely concluded that neither the impugned order has been
    found suffering from any patent illegality, nor learned court committed any error of law, while
    passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.
  4. No other argument was raised.
  5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the
    reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present revision petition
    is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for
    interference has been made out.
  6. Resultantly, with the above said observations made, instant revision petition stands
    dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.