Bhaskaran, J.

The appellant is the applicant in an application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person. The trial court dismissed the application finding that there is no bona fides in the application and that he is misusing the provision in Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is intended only to genuine cases of indigent persons.

2. The suit is for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of 5 cents of land and building admittedly owned by the defendant. When the defendant sent notice for eviction of the plaintiff from the building the present suit was filed with the following allegations. The defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- on 8-2-1997 and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on the same day. The document to be executed on or before 30-1-2001. Possession was also given to the plaintiff on the date of agreement. The plaintiff reconstructed the two rooms in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the deed registered. But on request of the defendant the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 10-1-2000 and the date for execution of document was extended upto 20-8-2002. After preparing the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff approached the defendant to execute the sale deed and he is still prepared to pay the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff filed the suit after paying 1-10th of the court fee payable. Subsequently, he filed the application for permission to sue as an indigent person with regard to the balance court fee which comes to Rs.13,893/-.

3. In the application for permission the averments are different. In the application, he has stated that he is a tailor by profession and there is no income from his business. It was as helped by his relatives that he entered into the agreement for purchase of the property. They are not in a position to held the plaintiff at present. Except the property shown in the schedule of the petition, he has no other asset. The value of the entire assets as shown in the schedule is only Rs.810/-.

4. Therefore, his averments in the plaint that he was always ready with the balance consideration of Rs.75,000/- is given a go by in the petition. On the other hand, his case in the petition is that his relatives who promised to held have found it difficult to help him. The question to be considered is whether in such a case the application can be allowed.

5. Under Order 33 Rule 2, it is mandatory that the application shall contain the particulars required in the plaint in the suit and contain schedule of movable and immovable properties belonging to the applicant. To satisfy the requirement of S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff should aver in the plaint that he was always ready with the balance sale consideration. But in the petition, he has no case that he was ready with the balance consideration. On the other hand, he stated that his relatives who promised to help him have backed out. It is therefore a case where the plaintiff has failed to make the averments as required in the plaint in the petition for permission to sue as an indigent person. In this case, after making the averments regarding readiness and willingness in the plaint and paying 1/10th court fee, the plaintiff filed the petition for permission to sue as an indigent person. In the application, there is no averment satisfying S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and under Rule 5, the court in bound to reject the application if the petition does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 2 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If as a matter of fact he had the balance Rs.75,000/- he failed to disclose it in his petition. He has not disclosed in the petition his cash in hand out of his business.

6. Shri. Shreekumar G. (Chelur) contended that while finding out the means of the applicant the subject matter of the suit is to be