( 1 ) THE appeal is filed against the order dated 6-3-1991 passed in O. P. No. 212 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Khammam by which the petition filed under O. 33, R. 1, C. P. C. by the appellant for permission to sue the respondents as an indigent person was rejected.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was operated upon tubectomy on 21-11-1985 in the Government headquarters hospital at Khammam by the first respondent. By that time, the petitioner was having four children. Two years after the operation, to her surprise the petitioner conceived and delivered on 16-4-1988 male twins who were aged more than one year at the time of filing of the above petition. The delivery took place in the Government headquarters hospital at Khammam. The petitioner s husband is a fourth class employee in Malaria department. The tubectomy operation was undertaken because they could not maintain large family and as such the operation was conceived and planned to have a better future life of the family members. Due to the negligence of the doctor who conducted operation on the petitioner, the tubectomy operation failed and the petitioner begot two more children. Therefore, the above petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 with 12% per annum as an indigent person.

( 3 ) THE respondents have filed their counter and they have taken a stand that the petition is not maintainable and that the allegation that the petitioner has no means to pay the court-fee is not at all correct.

( 4 ) DURING the course of enquiry before the court below, the petitioner examined herself as P. W. 1 and stated that her husband is working as field worker in Malaria department and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000. 00. The first respondent who examined herself as R. W. 1 filed the salary certificate (Ex. B4) of P. W. 1 s husband to show that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,393. 00 per month. The lower Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by either side, held that the petition filed by the petitioner as an indigent person is not maintainable and rejected the same under O. 33, R. 5 of C. P. C. Order 33, Rules 1 and 5 reads as follows :-Rule 1 :-Subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by an indigent person;explanation I : A person is an indigent person,- (A) if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or (B) where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit;explanation II :any property which is required by a person after the presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent person, and before the decision of the application, shall be taken into account in considering the question whether or not the applicant is an indigent person;explanation III :where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question whether he is an indigent person shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity;rule 5 :-The Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person- (a) Where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by rules 2 and 3; or (B) where the applicant is not an indigent person; or (C) where he has, within two months next before the presentation of the application, disposed of any property fraudulently or in order to be able to apply for permission to sue as an indigent person : Provided that no application shall be rejected if, even after the value of the property disposed of by the applicant is taken into account, the applicant would be entitled to sue as an indigent person, or; (D) where his allegations do