( 1 ) IN this appeal, we are concerned with the interpretation of sub-rule (a) of R. 5 of O. XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 2 ) THE appellant Lakshmidevamma filed a suit for maintenance against her husband. She was not able to pay the Court-fee. She filed an application to sue as an indigent person. The learned Subordinate Judge, Penukonda found that she had a 1 8th share in the house left by her husband (sic) (father) at the time of his death and that she has not mentioned this fact in her application. He also found that even if that 1/8th share is taken into account, she has no means to pay the required Court-fee of Rs. 1906 - payable on the petition. However, he dismissed the application on the sole ground that she was guilty of suppression of the fact that she had 1/8th share in the house as she has not disclosed the same in the petition, Challenging the validity of that order, she filed this appeal.

( 3 ) THIS matter came up for hearing before our learned brother Upendralal Waghray, J. , who thought it fit to refer to a Bench as there is a conflict of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court.

( 4 ) ORDER 33 relates to suits by indigent persons. Ru