High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhdev Singh And Others vs Dhanna Singh And Others on 12 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh And Others vs Dhanna Singh And Others on 12 August, 2009
C.R. No. 4539 of 2009                                                  [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                CHANDIGARH.

                                 C.R. No. 4539 of 2009

                                 Date of Decision: August 12, 2009



Sukhdev Singh and others

                                      .....Petitioners

            Vs.

Dhanna Singh and others

                                      .....Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                          -.-

Present:-   Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

                  -.-



M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Vide impugned order dated July 27, 2009, the Additional;

District Judge (Fast Track Court), Sangrur, has dismissed the application of

the petitioners filed alongwith an appeal against money decree of

Rs.50000/- on the ground that the petitioners have got sufficient means to

pay the Court fee relying upon the following circumstances:-

 C.R. No. 4539 of 2009                                                    [2]




                     i)    Petitioner No.1 had contested the Lok Sabha

Election from Sangrur constituency held in 2009

by depositing Rs.5000/- as security; and

ii) The report of Collector indicates that the

petitioners are co-sharer to the extent of 3/319

share in khasra Nos. 42/25/7-1, 48/4/21-4, 6/7-2,

15/1/0-12.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the abovesaid

circumstances are not sufficient enough to dismiss the application of the

petitioners.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and taking into

consideration the judgment of State of Haryana and another Vs. Baldev

Raj and another, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 181, cited by counsel for the

petitioner, laying down that a property which is exempted from attachment

under the Civil Procedure Code cannot be taken into consideration while

determining the indigence of a plaintiff. The ratio of the said judgment is

not applicable to the facts of the present case as the property owned by

petitioners does not seem to be immune to attachment as per provisions of

Civil Procedure Code.

Petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, a

period of one month is granted to the petitioners from today to file the Court

fee.

August 12, 2009                                     (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                               JUDGE