Sec. 92 - Merely because the suit contains a declaratory relief it cannot take it out of this section. [ Amrithakumari vs. Ramanathan. 1998(2) KLT 305 = 1998(2) KLJ 143 . S.Sanakrasubban(J)]
Sec. 92 - Petition for leave to file an pauper should contain all facts, just as a petition filed for prosecuting a suit as an indigent person. Suit should be numbered only after leave is granted. [ Amrithakumari vs Ramanathan. 1998(2) KLT 305 = 199892) KLJ 143. S.Sanakarasubban(J)]
Order 33, Rule 5 -- Application to sue as indigent person -- Burden of proof -- When a person alleges that he is an indigent person, the burden of proof is on the opposite parties to establish that the applicant is not an indigent person -- Rejection of the application by the court without issuing notice to the opposite parties to adduce evidence is not sustainable in law [ Rosamma Vs. Chacko & anr. 1999(1) KLT 182 = 1999(1) KLJ 229. (P.A. Mohammed & D. Sreedevi.(JJ)].
Order 33, Rule10 -- Recovery of court fee -- Suit fled by indigent person
decreed in favour of the plaintiff in which the State of Kerala is the defendant
--Direction that the defendant shall paay cost of the plaintiff imposes a
liability on the petitioner t pay court fee to the Government. Amount of court
fee has to be recovered from the state ( defendant ) -- Recovery proceedings
initiated against the plaintiff set aside. [Pathrose
Vs. State of Kerala & ors. 1999(1) KLT 591 = 1999(1) KLJ 434 ( J.B. Koshy
(J)].