(1.) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner. He filed a suit in forma pauperis in MJC 22 of 1962 in the Court of the Munsif of Aska. On the very day (31-1-1962) the petition was filed, he was examined on oath by the learned Munsif. In that statement he clearly stated in terms of Order 33, Rule 5 (c) and (e), C. P. C. A notice was issued on the opposite parties and the Government. There was contest on the question of pauperism. The learned Munsif found that the petitioner was a pauper. He, however, dismissed the application under Order 33, Rule 1, C. P. C. holding
(2.) ONE is at a loss to appreciate as to what exactly are the other ingredients under order 33, Rule 5, the learned Munsif wanted the petitioner to satisfy. The Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper if the petitioner does not satisfy the Court with regard to the requirements laid down in Order 33, Rule 5, C. P. C. Order 33, Rule 5, C. P. C. may be quoted :
(3.) RULE 6 clearly lays down that if the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds, stated in Rule 5, it shall fix a date (of which at least 10 days clear notice shall be given to the opposite parties and the government pleader) for receiving such evidence as the petitioner may adduce in proof of his pauperism and for hearing any evidence which may be adduced in disproof thereof. It is quite clear that Rule 6 would not come into operation unless the Court is satisfied that the petitioner fulfils the requirements of Rule 5. Rule 6 categorically prescribes that the evidence to be received must be confined to questions of proof or disproof of pauperism and on no other matter the evidence can be permitted to go in.