I. Filing of Suit by an Indigent Person

(Order XXXIII CPC)

1. Meaning of “Indigent Person”

Under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC, an indigent person is one who:

• Is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the prescribed court fee; or

• Where no court fee is prescribed, cannot afford ₹1,000 (excluding property exempt from attachment and subject-matter of the suit).

2. Procedure for Filing Suit as an Indigent Person

(a) Presentation of Application – Rule 2

• The applicant files an application to sue as an indigent person, which contains all particulars of a plaint.

• It must be signed and verified like a plaint.

• Filed personally unless exempted by the court.

📌 Legal position:
👉 An indigency application is a plaint in substance, though not formally registered until allowed.

(b) Preliminary Examination – Rule 4

• Court may examine the applicant regarding:

  • His means

  • Merits of the claim

(c) Grounds for Rejection – Rule 5

The application shall be rejected if:

1. Applicant is not indigent

2. Application is not framed properly

3. Applicant has disposed of property fraudulently to claim indigency

4. Suit appears barred by law

5. Allegations do not disclose a cause of action

(d) Inquiry into Indigency – Rules 6 & 7

• Court issues notice to:

  • Opposite party

  • Government Pleader

• Evidence may be recorded regarding indigency.

(e) Order of Court – Rule 7

• If allowed → Application is registered as a plaint and suit proceeds.

• If rejected → Applicant may file a regular suit on payment of court fee.

II. Interim Relief Before Permission to Sue as Indigent Person

🔑 Core Issue:

Can the court grant temporary injunction before the indigency application is admitted?

✅ Answer: Yes

Legal Position

1. Indigency application = plaint in substance

   • Though not yet registered, it contains all ingredients of a plaint.

2. Court’s inherent powers preserved

   • Under Section 151 CPC, court can pass interim orders to prevent:

     • Irreparable injury

     • Frustration of justice

3. Order XXXIX CPC applies

   • Temporary injunction can be granted if:

     • Prima facie case

     • Balance of convenience

     • Irreparable loss

Judicial Reasoning (Well-accepted view)

• The court is not powerless merely because permission under Order XXXIII is pending.

• Denial of interim relief may defeat the very purpose of the suit, especially in property disputes.

📌 Courts have consistently held that:

An application to sue as an indigent person is a plaint for all practical purposes, and the court can grant interim relief even before formal permission is granted.

Practical Illustration

If an indigent applicant seeks injunction against dispossession:

• Delay in granting injunction may result in irreversible harm.

• Therefore, court may grant ad-interim injunction, subject to final decision on indigency.

III. Conclusion (Mains-Ready)

✔ Filing as an indigent person is governed by Order XXXIII CPC, involving scrutiny of means and merits.
✔ The indigency application is treated as a plaint in substance.
✔ Interim relief of injunction CAN be granted even before the application is admitted, to protect the subject-matter of the suit and ensure justice.
✔ Such power flows from Order XXXIX read with Section 151 CPC.

If you want, I can:

• Convert this into 5-mark / 10-mark / 15-mark answer format

• Add case-law citations for judiciary exams

• Provide a Gujarati version or one-page revision note

Just tell me 👍

Perfect—here are exam-relevant, frequently cited case-laws you can safely quote in Judicial Services (Prelims + Mains + Interview) answers on Order XXXIII CPC & interim injunction.

I. Nature of Application under Order XXXIII CPC

(Indigency application = plaint in substance)

🔹 Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction

(2001) 5 SCC 22

Held:

• An application to sue as an indigent person contains all particulars of a plaint.

• For procedural purposes, it is a plaint in substance, though it becomes a plaint in form only after permission is granted.

📌 Use in exams for:
✔ Explaining why interim orders are possible before formal admission.

🔹 Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh

AIR 1962 SC 941

Held:

• Court can examine whether the application discloses a cause of action at the stage of Order 33.

• The inquiry is similar to scrutiny of a plaint under Order VII.

📌 Use:
✔ Grounds of rejection under Order XXXIII Rule 5
✔ Comparison with plaint scrutiny

II. Power to Grant Interim Relief Before Grant of Indigency Permission

🔑 Leading Authority

🔹 M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur

(1972) 2 SCC 427

Held:

• Courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to pass interim orders where CPC is silent.

• Such power exists to prevent abuse of process or failure of justice.

📌 Use:
✔ Foundation case for granting injunction before formal registration of suit

🔹 Savithramma v. K. Ramesh

ILR 1998 KAR 3203

Held:

• Pending disposal of an application under Order XXXIII, the court can grant temporary injunction.

• Otherwise, the very object of allowing indigent litigation would be frustrated.

📌 Very popular citation in state judiciary exams

🔹 Bai Zabu Khima v. Amardas

AIR 1966 Bom 154

Held:

• An indigent application is not a mere request, but a proposed suit.

• Interim relief may be granted to protect subject-matter pending decision on indigency.

📌 Use:
✔ Early High Court authority supporting injunction

III. Applicability of Order XXXIX CPC

🔹 Ravinder Kumar v. Julmi Devi

AIR 2010 HP 6

Held:

• Order XXXIX CPC applies even when the suit is not yet formally registered, provided a plaint in substance exists.

• Temporary injunction can be granted to avoid irreparable injury.

📌 Use:
✔ Direct authority linking Order XXXIII with Order XXXIX

IV. Government Pleader & Inquiry Stage

🔹 Mathai M. Paikeday v. C.K. Antony

(2011) 13 SCC 174

Held:

• Purpose of Order XXXIII is to ensure access to justice.

• Provisions must be interpreted liberally, not pedantically.

📌 Use:
✔ Judicial philosophy + constitutional access to justice angle (Art. 39A)

V. Ready-to-Write Mains Answer Paragraph (With Citations)

An application under Order XXXIII CPC is a plaint in substance, as held in Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction (2001) 5 SCC 22. Though formal registration of the suit follows grant of permission, the court is not powerless to protect the subject-matter meanwhile. In M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur (1972) 2 SCC 427, the Supreme Court recognised inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to pass interim orders to prevent failure of justice. High Courts in Savithramma v. K. Ramesh (ILR 1998 Kar 3203) and Bai Zabu Khima v. Amardas (AIR 1966 Bom 154) have specifically held that temporary injunction can be granted even before the indigency application is allowed, subject to satisfaction of Order XXXIX requirements.