The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.A.Haja Muniuddin Versus Indian Railways(1993) 1 MLJ 38 (S.C.) held
Access to justice cannot be denied to an individual merely because he does not have the means to pay the prescribed fee. Such a view would leave indigent persons without a remedy. It is, therefore, essential that the provisions of the Act and the Rules must be broadly interpreted to ensure access to justice. If a claimant is left without redress even if he has a valid claim against the railway administration merely because he is an indigent person, it would be a sad day and the poor will lose confidence in the system. No one can be heard to say, much less the railway administration, that even though the claimant has a genuine claim for compensation, against the railway administration, he must forgo the same if he does not have the means to pay the requisite fee. Such an interpretation which denies justice must be avoided. [Para. 5]
Thus, when an indigent person approaches the Tribunal for compensation for the wrong done to him, the Tribunal cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because he does not have the means to pay the fee. In such a situation, the ends of justice require that the Tribunal should follow the procedure laid down inO.33 of the Code to do justice for which it came to be established. [Para. 5]
In a recent judgment in Jeyabalan Versus Virumandi Her lordship J Aruna Jagadeesan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed
 3 MLJ 80
13. It is relevant to point that possession of sufficient means does not mean possession of sufficient property and it does not include such means on which bare living of party and his family depends and it is only a capacity to raise funds by normal and available lawful means that would be taken into account.
14. The words "sufficient means" have been interpreted by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachala Pradesh in the case of AIR 1982 Him Pra 23, wherein it is held thus:
"By now it is well settled that 'possession of sufficient means' does not mean possession of sufficient property. It is possible that one may be possessed of sufficient property but still may not be possessed of sufficient means. It will depend on the nature of the property. It will also depend whether the person concerned can easily come in possession of sufficient means. All this varies from case to case."
It is interesting to note the observations made by the High Court of Himachala Pradesh in the above said decision describing about the intention of the legislature to make provision of Order 33of CP in the words of his Lordship Chief Justice of HP as he then was at paragraph 4 of the said decision, which is extracted below:
"It is unfortunate indeed that in our socialistic democratic republic justice is still being sold. We are still carrying on with the old colonial traditions. The doors of the temple of justice are closed to a person unless he has got sufficient money. The money is needed not only to pay the heavy Court fee but also for the payment of getting legal assistance and meeting other sundry expenditure. Temple of justice should be open to all and sundry just like a temple of God. But the States instead of trying to ensure free and speedy justice, are always out to increase the Court fee. In some of the States it has become a source of revenue also. It is strange indeed that the State as a Socialistic Republic is out to mint money out of the miseries of the litigants. It is true that a provision like Order 33 Rule 1 has been on the statute book for last about 100 years to enable the poor to sue in forma pauperis. But then it was never more than an eye wash. Where a person has just enough money to meet the Court fee then he must pay the Court fee become literally a pauper and then enter the gate of justice. In other words, he has practically to strip himself naked before praying for justice. Even after paying the Court fee he has still to pay at least for summoning his witnesses and meet other sundry expenses provided he succeeds in getting free legal aid of sorts. And in the instant case the defendant, who is practicing lawyer and against whom serious allegations of fraud in depriving the appellant of his valuable property have been made, is doing his best to throw the appellant out of the Court of justice on the very threshold."
15. In the case of (1994) 1 LW 381, this Court has held that person possessed of sufficient property may still be not possessed of sufficient means. The same view is reiterated in the case of A. Prabhakaran Nair v. K.P. Neelakantan Pillai AIR 1988 Kerala 267 that possession of sufficient means would only mean capacity to raise money and not actual possession of property.
16. By applying the aforesaid position of law in this case, I am of the view that the respondent may possess some property a part of which he was compelled by pressing needs to discharge debts as in this case he had to pay the creditors which he had borrowed while doing money lending business and the loss occurred due to non payment of amount by the persons like the petitioner and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is realisable assets in the hands of the respondent. In such case, it would not deprive the plaintiff to have the benefit of Order 33 of C.P.C. It cannot be the purpose of this legislation that an indigent person should first deprive himself of the sole means of livelihood or alienate all his assets and then seek justice in penury.
Hence Courts should take a liberal approach in m such applications under Order 33 rule 1 so as to make way for justice even for poor litigants.