Madras High Court
K.V. Ananthanarayanan And Ors. vs K.G. Radhakrishnan on 22 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1991)2MLJ292A
ORDER Abdul Hadi, J.
1. This C.R.P. is by defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The suit is for damages to the tune of Rs. 2, 00, 000 claimed against the said defendants-petitioners who are doctors who did an operation on the plaintiff-respondent, an advocate on the ground that the operation has been done wrongly by the said doctors. But, on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent is an indigent person O.P. No. 282 of 1988 has been filed seeking permission of the court to sue as an indigent person. The said O.P. has been allowed by order dated 1.8.1990. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have preferred this C.R.P. The court below has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent is an indigent person on the ground that as per Ex. B-2 partition deed, the plaintiff got only a life interest in the property given under the said partition deed. But, after perusal of Ex. B-2, 1 find that apart from the said life interest, he also got another property absolutely, under the partition deed, i.e., C schedule property in Ex. B-2; (the other life-interest-property is the third item in E Schedule to the said partition deed). The plaintiff did not disclose in the O.P. either about the abovesaid absolute interest in the said E schedule or atleast about the life interest in the said E schedule. It is settled law that utmost good faith is expected in filing the petition seeking permission to sue as indigent person; vide Rajkumar Bhagatesaran v. V.P.V. Rajan and Ors. (1971) 1 M.L.J. 510 (D.B.) Further it has also been held in N.N. Raju v. R.C. Appanna , that even when there is failure to disclose life interest in a property, the O.P. should be dismissed.
2. Further, it is strange that despite the mandatory provision in Order 33, Rule 6, C.P.C., no notice was given to the Government Pleader when the O.P. came up for hearing.
3. In view of these reasons, the order of the court below is set aside and the C.R.P. is allowed with costs. However, the plaintiff-respondent is given three months time for payment of court-fee.