Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya vs Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors.

Held: The intent of Orders XXXIII and XLIV is unmistakable – They exemplify the cherished principle that lack of monetary capability does not preclude a person from knocking on the doors of the Court to seek vindication of his rights – The ground, upon which the claimant-appellant’s application to file the appeal as an indigent person was rejected, was that she had received compensation by way of the Award of the Tribunal, and therefore, she was not indigent – This observation to be belied by the impugned order itself as the Single Judge of the High Court has recorded the submission of the counsel for the claimant-appellant that no money stood paid to her at that point in time – So even though she had been awarded a sum, her indigency was not extinguished thereby – In considered view of this Court, the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the Misc. Application – Also, the Appellate Court, in accordance with the Order XLIV Rule 3(2), did not conduct any inquiry – The same was necessitated since nothing on record speaks of the claimant-appellant having filed the claim before the Tribunal as an indigent person, in which case she would be covered under Rule 3(1), which provides that no further inquiry would be required in respect of a person who was allowed to sue or appeal as an indigent person if they make an affidavit to the effect that they have not ceased to be an indigent unless the Government pleader objects or disputes such claim in which case an inquiry shall be held by the Appellate Court or under the orders thereof – Therefore on both counts, one, that she had not yet received the money and, therefore, at the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent; and second, that the statutory requirement under the C.P.C., as described, was not met – the order of the Single Judge of the High Court has to be set aside. [Paras 11, 15, 17, 18]