Indigency under Order XXXIII requires assessment of the applicant’s overall financial position.

The appellant-plaintiff sought damages and applied under Order XXXIII Rules 2 and 3 CPC to sue as an indigent person, asserting that he lacked sufficient means to pay the court fee.

Following an enquiry that included his statement, cross-examination, financial disclosures and reports on his immovable property, the Joint Registrar dismissed the application, finding that he had not established indigency.

The appellant challenged that order by chamber appeal, filed 118 days after the impugned order, and sought condonation of delay.

Whether the appellant established that he lacked sufficient means to pay the requisite court fee, warranting permission to sue as an indigent person

Whether the appellant showed sufficient cause to condone the 118-day delay in filing the chamber appeal

Under Order XXXIII Rules 2 and 3 CPC, the question is whether, considering the applicant’s financial position as a whole, the applicant has sufficient means to pay the requisite court fee; the assessment is not limited to whether the applicant has income or liquid funds.

The court may consider assets, employment history, earning capacity and other financial circumstances in making that assessment.

Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 prescribes a 15-day period for filing a chamber appeal, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits condonation where sufficient cause is established.

The Joint Registrar’s assessment was supported by evidence of the appellant’s landholding and its assessed value, his failure to produce five years of bank statements, his employment history and undisclosed remuneration, and a gift of land made shortly before the suit; the court considered these circumstances cumulatively, rather than relying solely on the disputed salary figure.

The appellant’s claim that the agricultural land was his livelihood, and his challenge to its recorded area, did not displace the finding that he had not established inability to pay the court fee.

The explanations concerning legal representation, administrative difficulties, holidays and preparation of the appeal were general and did not account specifically for the entire period; they therefore did not establish sufficient cause.

It also dismissed the application to condone the 118-day delay and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal both on merits and on limitation.