This original petition is directed against Ext.P7 order whereby the court below granted permission to the petitioner before the appellate court to sue as an indigent person. 2. Main grievance voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the court below has not taken note of Ext.P6 report of the Tahsildar, which shows that the petitioner before the court below had 52.5 cents of landed property from that he was earning an income of Rs.2,000/- per year and an income of Rs.24,000/- from casual labour work.
3. The court below considered the report in considerable detail and found that the report Ext.P7, does not specify whether the income of Rs.24,000/- is annual or monthly O.P.(C) No. 2341 of 2014 (O) 2 and came to the conclusion, a casual labour could not earn Rs.24,000/- per month. The lower court came to be conclusion that it must be the annual earning of the person concerned. It is also noticed by the court below that, the income from the landed property i.e., Rs.2,000/- is the annual income.
4. Court fee that is to be paid in appeal is Rs.8,500/- and the court below was conscious about the fact that the meager income that is derived by the petitioner is necessary for the maintenance of the petitioner and his family and it will not be appropriate for the court below to direct the petitioner to spend the whole income for the purpose of paying the court fee.
5. After hearing both sides and on going through the records, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the court below and it seems just and proper and moreover, the question of court fee is between the State and the person O.P.(C) No. 2341 of 2014 (O) 3 concerned.
For the above reasons, this petition is dismissed.
AMV/18/10/ Sd/-
(P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE)