Plaintiff Not Required To Pay Court Fee Till Permission To Sue As An Indignant Person Under O.33 R.9 CPC Is Withdrawn: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that unless permission granted to a plaintiff to sue as an indigent person is first withdrawn in accordance with Order XXXIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no direction can be issued requiring the plaintiff to deposit court fee merely on the basis of an application seeking such a deposit.

Observing that the defendants had not sought withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person and had instead sought a direction for deposit of court fee before recording of the remaining evidence, the Court held that the application was not legally tenable. The Court consequently declined to interfere with an order of a subordinate court rejecting the said application for deposition of court fee.

Justice Siddhartha Sah was dealing with a civil revision challenging an order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar rejecting an application filed by the defendants seeking a direction to the plaintiff to deposit the requisite court fee before leading the remaining evidence.

The plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 32,69,700 and a declaration that a sale deed dated 21.05.2015 executed between the parties was null and void. Along with the plaint, she filed an application under Order XXXIII read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to sue as an indigent person and exemption from payment of court fee at the time of institution of the suit.

Pursuant to directions issued by the Trial Court, an inquiry regarding the plaintiff's financial status was conducted. After considering the inquiry report submitted by the revenue authorities, the Trial Court, by order dated 30.05.2022, held the plaintiff to be an indigent person and permitted her to institute the suit without payment of the applicable court fee.

During trial, the plaintiff's daughter, who was also acting as her power of attorney holder, stated in cross-examination that the plaintiff's husband had served in the Police Department and that after his death, the plaintiff was receiving pension. Relying on this statement, the defendants filed an application seeking a direction that the plaintiff be required to deposit the applicable court fee before leading the remaining evidence.

The revisionists contended that the Trial Court had rejected their application merely on the premise that once permission had been granted to the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person, the issue could not be reopened at that stage.

Referring to the statement made by the plaintiff's daughter during cross-examination, the revisionists submitted that the plaintiff had represented herself to be poor and without sufficient means and had obtained exemption from payment of court fee on that basis. According to them, the statement regarding receipt of pension disclosed the plaintiff's actual financial position and showed that waiver of court fee had been obtained by suppression of material facts. The revisionists further relied upon Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC, which provides for withdrawal of permission granted to sue as an indigent person in appropriate circumstances.

The State submitted that the plaintiff had been permitted to sue as an indigent person by order dated 30.05.2022 after the Trial Court had called for and considered an inquiry report regarding her financial status.

It was further submitted that neither had any application been filed seeking recall of the order dated 30.05.2022 nor had the said order been challenged before any higher forum. According to the State, the application filed by the defendants at a belated stage was therefore not maintainable and the Trial Court had committed no illegality in rejecting it.

The Court noted that although reliance had been placed on Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC, the Application did not contain any prayer seeking withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. Rather, the prayer was confined to directing the plaintiff to deposit court fee before recording of the remaining evidence.

Referring to Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC, the Court observed that “…the Court may, on an application moved by the defendants, withdraw such permission if it appears that the plaintiff's means are such that he or she ought not to continue to sue as an indigent person if the contingencies contemplated under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Rule 9 are attracted”. However, the Court noted that no such relief had been sought in the present case.

“In view of the scheme of Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC, it is evident that unless the permission to sue as an indigent person is first withdrawn by the Court in accordance with law, no direction can be issued requiring the plaintiff to deposit court fee merely on the basis of an application. Therefore, since the defendants/ revisionists did not seek withdrawal of the earlier permission and instead filed an application only for directing the plaintiff to tender court fee, the said application was not legally tenable. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material illegality warranting interference in revision.

In fact, Application No. 60-Ga dated 17.03.2026 was merely consequential in nature and could have been maintainable only after an appropriate application under Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC seeking withdrawal of permission had first been allowed, if at all”, the Court held.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the civil revision.

It, however, observed that if the defendants file an application under Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC seeking withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of its filing.

Case: Late Shri Sanjay Negi (deceased) though legal heirs v State of Uttarakhand and another [Civil Revision No.50 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (UK) 67

Click Here To Read/Download Order