(1.) This is an application by a plaintiff for revision of an order of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, dismissing his application to sue as a pauper under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, C. P. C. The application came up for hearing before Upadhya, J. who being of the view that certain observations made by a Bench of this Court in Mohd. Baksh v. Khair-un-nisa, 1944 All LJ 366 required reconsideration referred the case to a Bench.
(2.) The facts, about which there is no dispute, in this case are that on 19-12-1956 the applicant sold his house, which was his only property, to his son-in-law and on 22-4-1957 filed an application to sue the Union of India as a pauper. His application was opposed by the District Government Counsel, who also represented the Union of India. The learned Civil Judge made an enquiry into the alleged pauperism on July 20, 1957, discovered that in the schedule of property the applicant had not mentioned a sum of Rs. 50/- deposited by him and his wife jointly in a certain bank and gave him time to amend the schedule. The schedule was amended within the time allowed but the District Government Counsel made an application for permission to produce evidence to challenge the sale of 19-12-1956 as fictitious. The learned Civil Judge made an enquiry into the fictitious nature of the sale and holding that it was fictitious decided that the applicant was possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fee. It is not in dispute that if be was deemed to be still owning the house he would have sufficient means to pay the court fee payable on the plaint.
(3.) It was vehemently contended before us that the enquiry into the fictitious nature of the sale was barred by the provision contained in Order XXXIII, Rule 5 (c). That provision is to the effect that the court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper where the applicant has: