Suppression Of Assets While Seeking Permission To Sue As 'Indigent Person' Indicates Party Playing Fraud On Court: Kerala High Court

“When a party in possession of movable/s and immovable property/ies fails to disclose the details of movable/s or immovable property/ies, which is mandated under Order 33 Rule 2, the same would throw light on the fact that he had suppressed material facts about movable/s and immovable property/ies, with a view to mislead the court and play fraud on the Court by suppressing his assets, which would disclose his capacity to pay the Court fee. To put it differently, suppression of the assets held by the person, who wants to sue as an indigent person is a clear indication to hold that the said person hided his assets, knowing fully well that disclosure of his assets would show prima facie, his capacity to pay the Court fee.”

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that in such cases, the courts can reject the application under Order 33, Rule 5(b) of CPC saying that the applicant is not an indigent person.

For context, a person can sue as an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC if he does not have enough means to pay the fee for instituting the suit. Order 33 Rule 2 mandates that every such application shall be accompanied by the details of the movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant with the estimated value thereof.

In the instant case, the appellant's application to sue as an indigent person was rejected by the Sub Court on the ground that he suppressed that he owned 4.5 cents of land, 76 cents of land and a building worth Rs. 1 Crore. The court also found that the appellant was capable of paying the court fee. Subsequently, the plaint filed by the appellant was rejected. Against these orders, the appellant approached the High Court.

The appellant submitted before the High Court that as per the High Court's decision in Basil Thomas v Joseph (2013), relief to file as an indigent is not restricted to persons striving on the poverty line. The Court in that case had observed that availability of assets or wealth does not necessarily mean that the person has sufficient means to pay the court fee.

The High Court held that rejection of plaint due to suppression of material facts was a justified order. However, the Court granted the appellant 2 weeks' time to revive the plaint by paying the remaining court fee.

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Vinoy Varghese Kallumoottill

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Thyparambil Thomas Thomas

Case No: RFA 18 of 2015

Case Title: G. Giri v G. Geetha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 101