An applicant seeking to sue in forma pauperis must disclose all their assets with utmost good faith. Deliberate concealment of material facts, such as ownership of substantial properties, will result in rejection of the application.

1. This application in revision by the plaintiffs arises out of an order of the court below, refusing their prayer to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that they were guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts intended to perpetrate fraud upon the court.

2. The relevant facts are these: The petitioners filed an application under order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to sue the opposite pasty for recovery of a sum above Rs. 8,00,000.00, an amount which must be said to be quite substantial. In the schedule of the properties belonging to them only two items were mentioned, namely, (1) Wearing apparels (old) valued at Rs. 200.00 and (2) old cooking vessels etc., valued at Rupees 300.00. In the rejoinder petition filed by the opposite party, it was disclosed that the petitioners had received compensation in different land acquisition cases in the years 1969 and 1970, more than Rupees 64,000.00 and that out of the said money received by them, they have purchased extensive first class paddy growing lands. It was further disclosed that apart from the acquisitions, they have sufficient ancestral lands of high value.

3. Petitioner No. 3 who examined himself in support of the petitioners case, however, stated that none of the petitioners had acquired any land, and that lands that they had were already acquired and the money which the petitioners got as compensation under the various land acquisition proceedings was spent otherwise and not for purchasing lands as alleged by the opposite party. In course of the evidence, however, the opposite party produced various documents from that, which have been discussed in sufficient detail by the court below, it is apparent that during the period 1968 to 1971, petitioner No. 1 along with his father purchased extensive lands under 5 registered documents jointly, for a value of rupees about 11,000.00. Similarly, petitioner No. 5, Khetu Mehton purchased lands worth Rs. 2,700.00. Lands worth about Rs. 34,000.00 were further acquired during the year 1965 in the name of the father of petitioner No. 1. The court below has further discussed the evidence to show that father of the petitioner No. 1 had acquired lands worth about Rupees 50,000.00. The learned Subordinate Judge also recorded a finding that during the years 1970 to 1972, the petitioners had more than Rs. 60,000.00 by way of compensation. On all these materials, the learned Subordinate Judge took a view that the petitioners were bound to disclose all these properties in the schedule of the plaint and by omitting to do so were guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts.

4. In this Court learned Counsel for the petitioners however, contended that the court below was bound to record a clear finding as to the nature and extent of the petitioners interest in the properties and as to whether that was sufficient to enable them to raise the necessary amount for payment of the Court-fee. With respect to the cash amount said to have been possessed by the petitioners, learned Counsel contended that it was open to the petitioners to spend every paisa of the same within a period of two months, next before the presentation of the application and, therefore, in absence of a further finding that the petitioners still possessed the amount no inference could be drawn against them under Rule 5 of Order XXXIII of the Code.

5. So far the cash money is concerned, there may be some force in the contention, nevertheless, I do not propose to give any concluded decision on this question, as in my opinion, this application must fail on the ground of concealment of the landed properties referred to above itself. Rule 2 of Order XXXIII of the Code impresses a duty upon an applicant when he sues in forma pauperis, to disclose in the schedule of the moveable or immovable property belonging to him with the estimated value thereof to enable the Court to examine the correctness of the applicants claims. A bench decision of this Court in t