Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS 11/23
RAMDASS Vs. SHARUKH
22.05.2024
Present: Ld. counsel for plaintiffs.
Ld. counsel for defendant no. 1 with defendant no. 1 in
person.
Ld. Counsel for proposed defendant namely Fruit &
Vegetable Seller Aadti Samiti.
None for the other proposed defendant i.e. APMC.
1. In this matter, plaintiffs have sought compensation on
account of the fact that one Sarvesh died because of the rash and
negligent act committed by Shahrukh who was driving a tonga in
the vegetable market being run by proposed defendant no. 2 and 3.
2. Perusal of file shows that the plaintiffs had sought
permission to continue with the suit as an indegent person. As per
record, such permission is yet to be granted in favour of plaintiffs.
3. In the present case, plaintiff is seeking compensation
to the tune of Rs.50 lacs for the death of his wife, which as per
him was a result of the negligent act of the defendant no. 1.
4. As far as the application for indigency is concerned, a
report was called from the concerned SDM as per which, plaintiff
no. 1 is possessed with a house measuring 25 square yards and
earns Rs.10,000/- per month as a plumber.
5. As per record, plaintiff no. 1 has five minor children to
support who are stated to be school going.
6. The prayer for indigency is opposed by the counsel for
defendant no.1 who claims that as per his information, plaintiff
no. 1 is having land in Aligarh and he works as a supervisor and
not as a plumber.
-- 1 of 3 --
CS 11/23
-2-
7. As far as the objection of defendant no.1 is concerned,
suffice is to say that while considering an application for
indigency, it is the court’s satisfaction to the effect that the
plaintiff does not have sufficient means to pay the court fees on
the plaint. There is no role of the defendant in this regard. Even
otherwise, except for a bald assertion, there is nothing on record
to suggest that the plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the court
fees. Thus, considering the report of the SDM and keeping in
mind the fact that plaintiff no. 1 appears to be earning Rs.10,000/-
per month only with other plaintiffs no. 2 to 6 being school going
children, in my humble opinion, it appears that plaintiffs do not
have sufficient means to pay prescribed court fees on the sum of
Rs.50 lacs claimed as compensation in this case. Accordingly,
they are allowed to sue as indigent persons. Application under
Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC is accordingly disposed off.
8. It is pertinent to note that while the suit was initially
filed against five defendants, four defendants i.e. defendant no. 2
to 5 were deleted vide order dated 25.05.2023.
9. Perusal of record shows that while the proposed
defendant i.e. Fruit & Vegetable Seller Aadti Samiti has been
served with the application for impleadment, the proposed
defendant APMC is yet to be served with the said application. Let
fresh notice of the said application be sent to the said proposed
defendant on filing of process/RC/speed post returnable for
31.07.2024.
-- 2 of 3 --
CS 11/23
-3-
10. At this stage, counsel for the plaintiffs submits that
considering his impleadment application moved on 07.12.2023, he
is not pressing his another impleadment application filed on
03.07.2023. Accordingly, impleadment application filed on
03.07.2023 is dismissed as withdrawn.
11. Plaintiffs are directed to file a fresh memo of parties
wherein the factum of deletion of earlier defendant no. 2 to 5 is
reflected.
AASHISH GUPTA
DJ-01/NE/KKD/DELHI
22.05.2024
-- 3 of 3 --