Court Must Conduct Independent Inquiry Under Order 33 CPC To Determine Indigency Of Person: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that for determining the indigency of a person under Order 33 of Civil Procedure Code, the court has to conduct an independent inquiry by itself or by appointing an officer of the court. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq said that the certificate obtained from the Government Authorities showing that a person is indigent can only be relied on for establishing the indigent circumstances and cannot be conclusive proof for to conclude whether the person is indigent. “To conclude the issue, the Court has to conduct an independent inquiry by itself or by appointing an officer of that Court. The Court or the officer of that Court appointed has to conduct an inquiry by following the established procedures and form an opinion for the purpose of declaring the person as indigent. On receipt of report, the Court independently takes a decision both on facts and law,” the court said. Order 33 of CPC deals with the manner in which suits may be filed by indigent persons. As per Rule 2 Order 33, an applicant should file an application in the form of a plaint, accompanied by a schedule of movable and immovable property. As per Rule 1A, the court usually conducts an inquiry into the applicant's means, assets, and bona fides through its chief ministerial officer. Rule 6 states that a notice is issued to the opposite party, affording them an opportunity to contest the claim of indigency. After considering the inquiry report and the objections, the court may allow the application under Rule 7, following which the case is registered as plaint without court fees. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Venkatesan against an order directing him to pay Rs. 2,01,62,284 to Sundaram Fasteners Limited along with an interest of 18%. He submitted that he had no sufficient means to pay the court fees which was approximately close to Rs. 22,80,000 as he had no source of income. He submitted that he was terminated from the company and was now a 66-year-old and was living out of help extended by relatives and friends. The application was however, challenged by the respondent company which argued that the petitioner possessed properties in his name. The company submitted the petitioner's bank statements and submitted that in the years 2024 and 2025, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 58 lakh in his account. Thus, the company argued that the petitioner was not an indigent person and had not made out a prima facie case. The court traced the process of filing a petition by indigent person and noted that only when a prima facie case regarding indigency has been made out, the court had to conduct an inquiry under Order 33. The court noted that if, based on the available documents the court forms an opinion that the prima facie case of indigency has not been established, the petition is liable to be rejected. “Only if a prima facie case regarding indigency is established by the petitioner, then alone an inquiry is to be conducted, but not otherwise. Based on the documents available, if the Court by itself is able to form an opinion that the petitioner seeking permission to sue as a indigent person has not established the prima facie case, then such petitions are liable to be rejected by the Court, and no further inquiry needs to be undertaken. The said position has been amply made clear under Order XXXIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure,” the court said. On the question of whether a certificate obtained from the revenue authorities would be sufficient to grant permission to sue as indigent persons, the court noted that such a certificate could be considered as a document for considering the case and would not be considered as conclusive proof. In the present case, perusing the bank statements produced by the company, the court noted that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 58 Lakh. The court also noted that the petitioner himself had admitted to having two properties in his name and had not made any attempts to alienate the property. Thus, the court held that the petitioner had not established that he didn't have sufficient means to pay the court fee. Hence, the court dismissed the plea. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. R. Raman Senior Counsel for Mr. C. Seethapathy Case Title: S Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 Case No: CMP.No.19328 of 2025 in OSA.SR.No.17760 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Court Must Conduct Independent Inquiry Under Order 33 CPC To Determine Indigency Of Person: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags