IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 631 of 2008()
1. POOVALI ASOKAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANIYATH ROSHNI, W/O.SASIDHARAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :14/08/2008
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J.
=======================
C.R.P No.631 of 2008
=======================
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is filed by respondent in
O.P.62/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Thalassery
under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure
challenging the order passed by the Sub Judge
permitting respondent to sue as an indigent
person. When the O.P was originally allowed and
respondent was permitted to sue as an indigent
person, petitioner filed C.R.P.1317/2004 before
this court contending that respondent is not an
indigent person and permission should not have been
granted. Under Ext.A1 judgment dated 24.2.2006,
the earlier order was set aside and trial court
was directed to reconsider the question afresh.
Learned Sub Judge thereafter passed the impugned
order dated 25.3.2008 permitting respondent to sue
as an indigent person and converted the petition to
a suit. It is challenged in this revision petition
CRP No.631/2008 2
contending that learned Sub Judge did not properly
consider Annexure A2 report submitted by the
Tahsildar, Thalassery disclosing that respondent is
having sufficient properties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
was heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel is that
under Annexure A1 order this court set aside the
earlier order as it was found that question
whether respondent has disclosed all the properties
were not properly considered by the learned Sub
Judge and only report of the Tahsildar, Kannur was
obtained and no report from the Tahsildar,
Thalassery was obtained and when Annexure A2 report
submitted by the Tahsildar establish that
respondent is having other properties permission
should not have been granted.
4. On hearing the learned counsel and going
through the impugned order, I do not find any
illegality or irregularity warranting interference.
The learned Sub Judge has considered the aspect
CRP No.631/2008 3
in the proper perspective and found that respondent
is not owning property or other means sufficient
enough to pay the court fee. In such circumstance,
Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Judge
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
CRL.R.P.NO. /08
———————
ORDER
MARCH,2008