The omission of a particular property from the schedule of property attached to an application for permission to sue as a pauper does not justify rejecting the application under Order 33, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, if the application is otherwise framed and presented in accordance with the rule.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas. By the said order the learned Subordinate Judge held that the opposite party was a pauper and allowed his application to be adjudged as a pauper with costs.

( 2 ) THE suit out of which this application arises was filed on 21-7-1953 and there was a prayer that the plaintiff should be adjudged a pauper. The application for permission to sue as a pauper did contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits and there was a schedule attached thereto setting out the properties which according to the petitioner belonged to him with the estimated value thereof. The application was also signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of plaints. The value of the properties as given in the said Schedule which was schedule 'b' was only Rs. 30/- and it consisted of a bed, utensils and sundry articles. At the hearing before the learned Subordinate Judge the plaintiff gave evidence and according to his evidence his net income is Rs. 65/- per month derived from purchase and sale of old bottles. His further evidence was that he has seven mouths to feed and the rent of the house where he lives with his family is Rs. 26/- per month. There was no evidence given on the side of the opposite party to show that the plaintiff was sufficiently well off or that his evidence should not be accepted. The learned Judge relying on the evidence of the plaintiff held that he was a pauper and made an order accordingly. It is against that order that the present petition has been made to this Court.

( 3 ) AT the hearing before us the learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the learned Subordinate Judge did not take into consideration one important fact. He contended that the plaintiff in his evidence admitted before the Court that he has got an ancestral house at Faridpur in Pakistan. The learned Judge did not in his judgment refer to that fact at all, nor did he take that fact into consideration in arriving at his decision. The learned Advocate further contended before us that in view of the fact that in Schedule 'b' referred to above this property was not included the learned Judge should have rejected the application for permission to sue as a pauper under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 5 of Order 33, Civil P. C.

( 4 ) SO far as the second contention of the learned Advocate is concerned we do not agree that the learned Subordinate Judge should have rejected the application under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 5 of Order 33, Civil P. C. Rule 5 inter alia' lays down that the court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper (a) where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3 or (b) where the applicant is not a pauper. Rule 2 provides that every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits; a schedule of any moveable or immovable property belonging to the applicant with the estimated value thereof shall be annexed thereto, and it shall be signed and Verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of plaints. The learned Advocate's contention is that inasmuch as this house at Faridpur has not been set out in the schedule annexed to the application for permission to sue as a pauper the provisions of Rule 2 have not been complied with and therefore under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 5 the application should have been rejected. In our opinion the non-inclusion of any particular property in the schedule annexed to an application for permission to sue as a pauper would not entitle a Court to reject an application under 'rule 5 of Order 33, Civil P. C. What is laid down in Sub-rule (a) of Rule 5 is that where an application is "not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rule 2. " the Court shall reject the said application. An application can be said to have been framed and presented in