Late Shri Sanjay Negi (Deceased) through Legal Heirs v. State of Uttarakhand and Another, 2026

The plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking recovery of ₹32,69,700 along with a declaration that the sale deed dated 21.05.2015 executed between the parties was null and void.

Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIII read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to sue as an indigent person without payment of the prescribed court fee.

The Trial Court directed the revenue authorities to conduct an inquiry regarding the plaintiff's financial condition.

After considering the inquiry report, the Trial Court passed an order dated 30.05.2022 declaring the plaintiff an indigent person and permitted institution of the suit without payment of court fees.

During the trial, the plaintiff's daughter, who was also acting as her power of attorney holder, stated during cross-examination that the plaintiff's deceased husband had served in the Police Department and that the plaintiff was receiving family pension after his death.

Relying upon this statement, the defendants filed an application seeking a direction that the plaintiff deposit the requisite court fee before leading the remaining evidence.

The defendants alleged that the plaintiff had concealed the fact of receiving pension and had wrongly obtained exemption from payment of court fees.

The Trial Court rejected the defendants' application on the ground that permission to sue as an indigent person had already been granted and could not be disturbed through such an application.

Aggrieved by this order, the defendants preferred a civil revision before the Uttarakhand High Court.

The High Court held that the application filed by the defendants was legally not maintainable because it merely sought a direction for deposit of court fees and did not seek withdrawal of the earlier permission granted to the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person.

The Court observed that Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC specifically provides the statutory mechanism for withdrawing permission granted to an indigent plaintiff where the prescribed contingencies exist.

It held that unless such permission is first withdrawn by a competent order under Rule 9, the plaintiff continues to enjoy exemption from payment of court fees.

The Court clarified that merely alleging improvement in the plaintiff's financial condition or suppression of facts does not automatically require payment of court fees.

The Court found no jurisdictional error, perversity, or material illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the defendants' application.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision.

However, the Court granted liberty to the defendants to file an appropriate application under Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC seeking withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff.

The Court further directed that if such an application is filed, it should be decided expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of filing

The judgment reinforces the mandatory procedural safeguards contained in Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC, ensuring that exemption from court fees cannot be withdrawn casually or indirectly.

The Court emphasized that statutory procedures cannot be bypassed by filing applications seeking consequential relief without first obtaining the primary relief contemplated by law.

The decision upholds the principle that procedural law must be strictly followed where a statute prescribes a specific mechanism for altering an existing legal status.

The Court distinguished between allegations regarding a plaintiff's financial capacity and the legal process necessary to revoke indigent status.

The judgment protects indigent litigants from arbitrary directions requiring payment of court fees while preserving the defendants' right to seek withdrawal of such privilege through the proper statutory procedure.

The ruling clarifies that courts cannot indirectly achieve what the statute requires to be done directly through Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC.

The decision strengthens procedural certainty in civil litigation by affirming that consequential relief cannot precede the determination of foundational relief.

The judgment serves as an important precedent emphasizing judicial discipline in adhering to procedural requirements before depriving a litigant of statutory benefits.