“Article 39A of Constitution [Directive Principles] is equally applicable to district judiciary.

Trial courts cannot reject a civil suit relating to property dispute for non-payment of court fees alone, the Supreme Court has held.

Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justices S.J. Mukhopadhaya and V. Gopala Gowda said “Article 39A of the Constitution [Directive Principles] is equally applicable to the district judiciary. It is the duty of the courts to see that justice is meted out to people irrespective of their socio-economic condition, cultural rights or gender identity. Further, Article 39A of the Constitution provides for a holistic approach in imparting justice. It not only provides for free legal aid via appointment of counsel for the litigants, but also ensures that justice is not denied to litigating parties due to financial difficulties.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Gowda said: “Further, Section 12(h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, provides that every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act. In the case in hand, it is clear that the appellant Manoharan could not pay court fee due to financial difficulty because of which his suit was rejected. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant had moved the court claiming his substantive right to his property. The appellant, faced with a situation like this, did not deserve the dismissal of the original suit by the court for non-payment of court fee. He rather deserved a more compassionate attention from the court of sub judge.”

In the present case, the appellant secured a loan from the respondent Sivarajan after selling his land on the condition that the property would be re-conveyed to him on repayment of the loan. However, when the respondent sold the land to a third party, the appellant moved a trial court in Kerala, which quashed the transaction. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed his suit for recovery of the property on the ground that he could not fully pay the court fee. His appeal having been rejected by the Kerala High Court, Mr. Manoharan filed the present appeal in the apex court.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench said: “In the light of the legal principle laid down by this court, the appellant deserved waiver of court fee so that he could contest his claim on merit which involved his substantive right. The court of sub judge erred in rejecting the case of the appellant due to non- payment of court fee. Hence, we set aside the the decision of the court of sub judge and condone the delay of the appellant in non-payment of court fee. We remand the case back to the trial court for payment of court fee within eight weeks.”The Bench said: “If for any reason, it is not possible for the appellant to pay the court fee, he is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional district legal service authority and Taluk Legal Services Committee seeking legal aid for sanction of court fee.”