The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.P(Indigent) No.3/2007 on the files of Sub Court, Neyyattinkara as well as the petitioner in I.A No.1283/2007 filed therein. The suit was filed to pass a decree allowing the plaintiff to recover an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- from the defendants and their assets along with cost of the suit. He filed a petition under Order 33 Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code claiming that he is an indigent person having no money at all to pay the court fee. Hence, he sought for leave to sue as an indigent person without payment of court fee. After considering the averments in the affidavit as well as the plaint the court below dismissed the petition on a finding that the petition is not maintainable due to nonjoinder of necessary party. The legality and propriety of the said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an illiterate man having no property at all except the property which was appropriated by the respondent bank. He has lost his residence and property due to the illegal activities of the defendants 2 to 6 and his family was thrown to the street and now he is living at the mercy of others. Since he has no property at all in any of the district in Kerala there was no need to make District Collector, Kollam as a party in the O.P. But, the court below went wrong by finding that the District Collector, Kollam is a necessary party and in the absence of District Collector, Kollam the petition is not maintainable.
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether District Collector, Kollam is a necessary party in the above indigent O.P filed by the petitioner. Going by the impugned order it is seen that respondents 2 to 6 filed an objection stating that the petitioner is having building and properties of his own and he is residing at Kollam district. The court below observed that in spite of the above said specific averments in the objection, the petitioner has not made the District Collector, Kollam as respondent in the O.P. Instead he had impleaded District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent No. 7 also filed objection stating that he is residing at Kollam District and the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties in the absence of District Collector, Kollam in the array of respondents.
4. Going by the affidavit filed along with the O.P, it is stated by the petitioner himself that he is residing at S.R.N. Cottage, Irakuzhi, Kanjirathummoodu, Kadakkal, Kollam District. Similarly, in the affidavit filed along with this Revision Petition also it is stated that the petitioner is residing in the above said address. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that it is the address of his relative's house and he is not a permanent resident of the above address. But, I am unable to accept the said argument in the absence of any such averment either in the indigent O.P or in the affidavit filed along with the indigent O.P or in this W.P.(C). It could be reasonably presumed that the petitioner is a person permanently residing in Kollam district. If that be so, he could have impleaded the District Collector, Kollam as the respondent in the O.P, enabling to make an enquiry as regards his property in Kollam District by the District Collector. I find that as rightly held by the court below the District Collector, Kollam was a necessary party, whose presence is required for the proper adjudication of I.A No.1283/2007. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order under challenge. Consequently, this Writ Petition is dismissed. But, the Revision Petitioner is allowed to refile the O.P, after making necessary parties in the party array, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.HARILAL, JUDGE vdv