Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Indigent Person Status for Companies. The court held that the term 'person' in Order XXXIII includes both natural and juristic persons, allowing companies to sue as indigent.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose over whether Khader International Construction, a limited company, could sue as an indigent person under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The company sought permission to sue without paying court fees, which was initially granted by the Sub-Court, Kochi. The Union Bank of India, the appellant, contested this, arguing that the term 'person' in the CPC referred only to natural persons and not to juristic entities like companies. The appellant cited various legal precedents to support its claim that the provisions of Order XXXIII were intended for individuals who could present themselves in court. In contrast, the respondent's counsel argued that the term 'person' should be interpreted broadly to include juristic persons, as the provision was designed to assist those unable to afford court fees. The court analyzed the legislative intent behind Order XXXIII and referenced multiple case laws that supported the inclusion of juristic persons in the definition of 'indigent person'. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the term 'person' in Order XXXIII encompasses both natural and juristic persons, allowing the company to sue as an indigent person. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Indigent Person Status - Juristic Persons - The term 'person' in Order XXXIII, Rule 1 includes both natural and juristic persons - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIII, Rule 1 - The court held that a public limited company can maintain an application to sue as an indigent person, as the provision is intended to be benevolent and assist those unable to pay court fees, thus extending the definition of 'person' to include juristic entities (Paras 1-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a limited company is entitled to sue as an indigent person under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the term 'person' in Order XXXIII includes both natural and juristic persons, allowing the company to sue as an indigent person.

Law Points

  • Indigent person
  • Juristic person
  • Order XXXIII
  • Rule 1 CPC
  • Legal capacity
  • Court fee exemption
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2001 LawText (SC) (05) 47

Appeal (civil) 943 of 1993

2001-05-08

K.G. Balakrishnan, U.C. Banerjee

K.K. Venugopal, T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer

Union Bank of India

Khader International Construction & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal regarding the status of a limited company as an indigent person.

Remedy Sought

Khader International Construction sought permission to sue as an indigent person.

Filing Reason

The company claimed inability to pay court fees.

Previous Decisions

The Subordinate Judge allowed the application, which was upheld by the High Court.

Issues

Whether a limited company can sue as an indigent person under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the term 'person' in Order XXXIII refers only to natural persons. The respondent contended that the term includes juristic persons and is intended to assist those unable to pay court fees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the term 'person' in Order XXXIII of the CPC includes both natural and juristic persons, thereby allowing companies to file as indigent persons.

Judgment Excerpts

The point for decision in this appeal is whether the first respondent, a limited company, is entitled to sue as an indigent person under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that the word 'person' mentioned in Order XXXIII includes not only a natural person but other juridical persons also.

Procedural History

The respondent filed a suit in the Sub-Court, Kochi, seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. The Subordinate Judge allowed the application, leading to an appeal by the appellant, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIII, Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside Onerous Conditions for Anticipatory Bail Due to Unreasonable Imposition. Conditions for bail must not impede the right to seek bail, as established under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Penalty for Excavation of Ordinary Earth Without Authorization Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — Petitioner Had Valid Development Permission and No Mining Intent. Excavation of ordinary earth as part of construction pr...