Supreme Court clarifies procedure for indigent suits: Solomon Selvaraj vs. Indirani Bhagawan Singh (2 December 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2 December 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 1706

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can a court dismiss a person’s plea to file a lawsuit as an indigent person (someone who cannot afford court fees) based on the court’s assessment of the case’s merits, such as whether the case is barred by res judicata or lacks a cause of action? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the procedure for such cases. This judgment clarifies the scope of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with suits by indigent persons.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellants, Solomon Selvaraj and others, filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in the Trial Court. Along with the suit, they submitted an application (I.O.P. No. 1 of 2015) seeking permission to file the suit as indigent persons, meaning they claimed they could not afford the court fees. The respondents, Indirani Bhagawan Singh and others, opposed this application.

The respondents argued that the suit was barred by res judicata (a legal principle preventing re-litigation of issues already decided) and that the suit lacked a cause of action (a valid legal reason to sue). They also contested the appellants’ claim that they were indigent. The Trial Court rejected the appellants’ application to sue as indigent persons.

The appellants then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which also dismissed their appeal, agreeing with the Trial Court that the suit was barred by res judicata and that allowing the suit would be an abuse of the court process. This led to the appellants filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court rejected the application to sue as indigent persons, stating that the suit was vexatious, an abuse of the legal process, and barred by res judicata. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld this decision, leading the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):

• Order 33 Rule 1: Allows an indigent person to apply to sue without paying court fees.
• Order 33 Rule 1A: Provides for inquiry into the means of an indigent person.
• Order 33 Rule 2: Specifies the contents of the application to sue as an indigent person.
• Order 33 Rule 4: Provides for the examination of the applicant when the application is in proper form.
• Order 33 Rule 5: Lists the grounds for rejecting an application to sue as an indigent person. Specifically, the court highlighted the following sub-rules:
  • (d): “…where his allegations do not show a cause of action…”
  • (f): “…where the allegations made by the applicant in the application show that the suit would be barred by any law for the time being in force…”
• Order 33 Rule 7: Provides for the procedure at hearing.
• Order 33 Rule 8: Details the procedure if the application is allowed.
• Order 33 Rule 9: Provides for withdrawal of permission to sue as an indigent person.
• Order 33 Rule 9A: Deals with assigning a pleader to an indigent person.
• Order 33 Rule 15: States that an order refusing to allow an applicant to sue as an indigent person bars a subsequent application of the same nature but allows the applicant to institute a suit in the ordinary manner. It also provides that the plaint shall be rejected if the applicant does not pay the costs incurred by the State Government and the opposite party in opposing his application for leave to sue as an indigent person.
• Order 33 Rule 15A: Allows the court to grant time to the applicant to pay the requisite court fees even while rejecting the application to sue as an indigent person, and upon such payment, the suit is deemed to have been instituted on the date the application was presented.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• Ms. V. Mohana, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, argued that the Trial Court and the High Court should not have considered the merits of the suit (whether it was barred by res judicata or lacked a cause of action) while deciding on the application to sue as indigent persons.
• She submitted that the court’s role was limited to determining whether the applicant was indigent. If the application was rejected, the plaintiffs could pay the court fees, and the suit should proceed.
• The appellants stated they were ready to pay the court fees if their application to sue as indigent persons was dismissed.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Shri V. Parthiban, the learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the suit was an abuse of the court process and was barred by res judicata.
• He contended that the court could consider whether the suit was an abuse of the legal process while deciding an application to sue as indigent persons.
• He relied on the case of Kamu Alias Kamala Ammal vs. M. Manikandan and Anr. [(1998) 8 SCC 522] to support his argument.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to sue as indigent persons could be rejected on the grounds that the suit is vexatious, an abuse of process of law and the court, and barred by res judicata?
2. Even if the application to sue as indigent persons is rejected, what order can be passed, and what remedy is available to the plaintiff(s)?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the precedent set in Kamu Alias Kamala Ammal vs. M. Manikandan and Anr. [(1998) 8 SCC 522], which held that an application to sue as an indigent person can be rejected if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
• The Court considered Order 33 Rule 5(d) and (f) of the CPC, which allows the rejection of an application to sue as an indigent person if the allegations do not show a cause of action or if the suit is barred by any law.
• The Court also considered Order 33 Rule 15 and 15A of the CPC, which provides for the procedure when an application to sue as an indigent person is rejected, including granting time to pay court fees.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance access to justice for indigent persons with the prevention of frivolous and vexatious litigation. The Court emphasized that while it is important to allow genuine indigent persons to litigate, the court should also be able to reject applications that are clearly without merit or barred by law.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of legal provisions and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process. The Court reasoned that allowing a suit to proceed when it is clearly barred by law or lacks a cause of action would be a waste of judicial resources and would not serve the interests of justice.

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the court should only consider the indigency of the applicant and not the merits of the case. However, it rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that Order 33 Rule 5 of the CPC allows the court to consider the merits of the case to prevent frivolous litigation.

The Court’s decision was that the Trial Court was right to reject the application to sue as an indigent person based on the merits of the suit, but the applicant should be given time to pay the court fees.

The reasons for the decision were:

• Order 33 Rule 5 of the CPC allows the rejection of an application if the allegations do not show a cause of action or if the suit is barred by law.
• The judgment in Kamu Alias Kamala Ammal vs. M. Manikandan and Anr. [(1998) 8 SCC 522] supports the view that the court can consider the merits of the case while deciding an application to sue as an indigent person.
• Order 33 Rule 15A of the CPC allows the court to grant time to pay court fees, ensuring that the applicant is not completely barred from pursuing their case.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“…the application for permission to sue as an indigent person has to be rejected and could not be allowed if the allegations in the plaint could not show any cause of action.”

“…the Court may, while rejecting an application, under Order 33 Rule 15A CPC grant time to the applicant to pay the requisite Court fee within such time as may be fixed by the Court or extended by it from time to time and upon such payment and on payment of cost referred to in Rule 15 within that time, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was presented…”

“…any observations made by the learned Trial Court and the High Court that the suit is barred by res judicata and/or on no cause of action shall be treated confine to deciding the application to sue as indigent person only.”

Key Takeaways

• A court can reject an application to sue as an indigent person if the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action.
• Even if an application to sue as an indigent person is rejected, the applicant must be given time to pay the required court fees.
• If the court fees are paid within the specified time, the suit is considered to have been instituted on the date the application to sue as an indigent person was presented.
• Observations made by the court regarding the merits of the case while deciding on the application to sue as an indigent person are limited to that specific decision and do not prevent the defendant from filing an application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

Directions

The Supreme Court granted the appellants four weeks to pay the requisite court fees. Upon payment, the suit would be deemed to have been instituted on the date the application to sue as an indigent person was presented. The Court also clarified that any observations made by the Trial Court and the High Court regarding res judicata or lack of cause of action were limited to the application to sue as an indigent person and would not prevent the defendants from filing an application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while a court must ensure access to justice for indigent persons, it is also empowered to reject applications to sue as indigent persons if the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and balances the rights of indigent litigants with the need to prevent frivolous litigation. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Solomon Selvaraj vs. Indirani Bhagawan Singh clarifies that while courts must provide access to justice for indigent persons, they can reject applications to sue as indigent persons if the suit is barred by law or lacks a cause of action. However, the applicant must be given time to pay the court fees, ensuring that they are not completely barred from pursuing their case. This judgment balances the need for access to justice with the prevention of frivolous litigation.

Category

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Order 33, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Order 33 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Order 33 Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Order 33 Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Order 33 Rule 15A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Civil Procedure
  • Indigent Suits
  • Res Judicata
  • Cause of Action
  • Court Fees

FAQ

Q: What is an indigent person in the context of a lawsuit?

A: An indigent person is someone who does not have sufficient means to pay court fees and can apply to sue without paying them.

Q: Can a court reject an application to sue as an indigent person?

A: Yes, a court can reject an application if the suit is barred by law, does not disclose a cause of action, or if the applicant is not actually indigent.

Q: What happens if an application to sue as an indigent person is rejected?

A: The applicant is given time to pay the required court fees. If the fees are paid, the suit is considered to have been instituted on the date the application was presented.

Q: What is res judicata?

A: Res judicata is a legal principle that prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided in a previous case.

Q: What is a cause of action?

A: A cause of action is a valid legal reason to sue, meaning the plaintiff must have a legitimate claim that the court can address.