Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

Manipulation of Financial Status to Meet Indigency Criteria Not Acceptable: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court upheld the decision of the Thiruvananthapuram Sub Court, rejecting an application by Sailaja alias Shailaja to sue as an indigent person. The case centered on procedural non-compliance and questionable property sales prior to the lawsuit’s filing, with the High Court emphasizing strict adherence to the procedural norms and financial integrity in indigent suits.

Sailaja’s plea was based on Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows economically weaker individuals to file suits without paying court fees. The application was initially rejected by the Sub Court due to her failure to comply with essential requirements at the inception of the case, such as detailing her financial status and complying with related procedural rules.

Non-Compliance with Procedural Rules: The court observed that Sailaja did not follow Order XXXIII Rules 2 and 3 at the time of the original filing in 2015, which mandate the inclusion of a detailed schedule of assets and personal presentation at court, respectively. These omissions were deemed significant enough to affect the integrity of her application to sue as an indigent person.

Questionable Property Sale: The court scrutinized the sale of property by Sailaja just 28 days before filing her lawsuit. This action led to her disqualification under Order XXXIII Rule 5©, as it appeared to be a strategic disposal of assets to qualify as an indigent. Despite arguments to the contrary, the court found that the timing and non-disclosure of these transactions indicated a manipulation of financial status.

Conclusion and Decision: The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit, citing the procedural missteps and strategic financial disposals by Sailaja that contravened the principles governing litigation by indigent persons. The judgment underscored the necessity of strict adherence to procedural rules and genuine financial disclosure in applications to sue as an indigent.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

Sailaja Alias Shailaja v. Shri A.Durairaj

 

Latest Legal News