Introduction:

In the case of S Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, the Madras High Court elaborated on the procedure for determining whether a person can be considered indigent under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that the court must conduct an independent inquiry either personally or by appointing an officer of the court. The bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq examined a plea filed by Venkatesan, who sought permission to file a suit without paying court fees, claiming that he lacked sufficient means. The case highlighted the interplay between documentary evidence, prima facie assessment, and procedural safeguards intended to ensure that only genuinely indigent persons are permitted to proceed without court fees, and that such applications are not misused.

Arguments:

Venkatesan had filed an appeal challenging an order directing him to pay Rs. 2,01,62,284 to Sundaram Fasteners Limited, along with 18% interest. He contended that he was unable to pay the substantial court fees of approximately Rs. 22,80,000 due to lack of income. The petitioner explained that he had been terminated from employment, was 66 years old, and was subsisting on the help extended by relatives and friends. Based on these claims, he sought relief under Order 33 CPC, which allows indigent persons to sue without paying court fees after satisfying the court regarding their indigency. The petitioner submitted a certificate from government authorities attesting to his indigent circumstances, arguing that this should suffice for the court to grant the permission to proceed.

On the other hand, the respondent, Sundaram Fasteners Limited, challenged the petition by producing documentary evidence indicating that the petitioner was not indigent. The company submitted bank statements showing deposits totaling Rs. 58 lakh in the years 2024 and 2025, as well as proof of ownership of two properties. The respondent argued that these facts demonstrated that the petitioner had sufficient means to pay court fees and that no prima facie case of indigency had been established. Counsel for the respondent contended that reliance solely on a certificate from government authorities was inadequate and that an independent evaluation was required before granting any relief under Order 33.

Judgement:

The High Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of Order 33 CPC, including Rules 1A, 2, 5, 6, and 7, which collectively lay down the process for allowing a person to file a suit without paying court fees. Rule 2 requires the petitioner to file an application in the form of a plaint, accompanied by a detailed schedule of movable and immovable properties. Rule 1A provides for a preliminary inquiry into the applicant’s assets and bona fides, typically conducted by the court’s chief ministerial officer. Rule 6 mandates that notice be issued to the opposite party to contest the claim of indigency, while Rule 7 permits the court to allow the petition if it is satisfied with the petitioner’s indigent circumstances, thereby registering the case as a plaint without the payment of court fees.

The court highlighted that a certificate from revenue authorities indicating that a person is indigent may be considered as supporting evidence, but it cannot be treated as conclusive proof of indigency. The bench observed that the purpose of Order 33 is to prevent misuse of the privilege of filing a suit without fees while ensuring access to justice for genuinely indigent persons. The court emphasized that an independent inquiry must be conducted to form an opinion on both facts and law, either by the court itself or by appointing an officer to undertake the investigation.

In this case, the High Court noted that a prima facie assessment is the preliminary step to determine whether a petition for indigency warrants a detailed inquiry. If the court, based on available documents, forms an opinion that no prima facie case of indigency is established, the petition can be rejected without further inquiry. Referring to the bank statements and the petitioner’s admissions regarding ownership of properties, the court concluded that Venkatesan had sufficient means to pay the court fee. The court stated that while Order XXXIII Rule 5 CPC allows for an inquiry when a prima facie case exists, it does not mandate such an inquiry where the initial assessment demonstrates that the petitioner is not indigent.

The bench found that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 58 lakh in his bank accounts over the relevant years and had not taken any steps to alienate his properties. These facts undermined his claim of indigency, and the court observed that he had failed to make out a prima facie case demonstrating insufficient means to pay court fees. While acknowledging the procedural safeguards under Order 33, the court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to invoke the provisions to circumvent the obligation to pay fees when he possessed adequate financial resources.

The High Court’s judgment underscored the principle that the mere production of a certificate from government authorities attesting to indigency does not obviate the need for judicial evaluation. The court reiterated that independent inquiry is essential to ensure that the statutory mechanism under Order 33 CPC is not exploited to the detriment of procedural fairness and equity. The bench observed that the structured procedure under Order 33 balances the need to facilitate access to justice for genuinely indigent persons while safeguarding against misuse by those who possess the means to pay court fees.

In conclusion, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Venkatesan, holding that he had not established that he lacked sufficient means to pay the court fee. The court reaffirmed that certificates from revenue authorities are supportive but not determinative and that prima facie assessment based on all available material, including financial documents and property records, is critical before allowing a person to proceed as an indigent litigant. This judgment serves as a guiding precedent for lower courts in evaluating claims of indigency, emphasizing the importance of independent judicial inquiry and careful scrutiny of financial and documentary evidence.