The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusion of the subject-matter of the suit and the equity of redemption while considering the means of an indigent person, as per the relevant provisions of Order 33 R.1 C.P.C. and Explanation I.

The request of appellant for permission to sue as an indigent person was refused by the court below for the reason that he had not disclosed all the properties to which he is entitled. That order is challenged in this appeal.

2. A simple mortgage was executed by appellant in favour of respondent on 9-5-1981 in respect of the property mentioned in the petition. He sought to set aside the decree alleging that no amount was received by him on the strength of that document and that the document was got executed under threat and coercion. The schedule to the petition contains only the description of his wearing apparel and it is alleged that he is not entitled to any property, movable or immovable.

3. The court below basing on the evidence of Petitioner as P. W.1 found that he had suppressed the fact of ownership over an area of 6 cents of land and the building therein. For that reason the request of petitioner was rejected and he was directed to pay court fee. The property stated to have been suppressed in none other than the subject matter of the suit.

4. Order 33 R.1 C.P.C. prescribes the provisions subject to which a suit may be instituted by an indigent person. Explanation I to that Order which defines who can indigent person is reads thus:

"(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."

The other two explanations inserted by the amendment of 1976 are not relevant for deciding the dispute in this revision. While ascertaining whether a person is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay court fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, any property which is exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit are therefore to be excluded.

5. R.2 of 0.33 enjoins a duty on the applicant to mention in the petition all the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits. In particular the petition should contain a schedule of any movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant with the estimated value thereof. A petition for permission to sue as an indigent person which is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed-by R.2 is liable to be rejected under R.5 of 0.33. The court below was persuaded to reject the request of appellant for the reason that he had not disclosed the details of a property possessed by him. The question arises as to whether details are to be shown separately when they relate to the subject ma tier of the suit. The further question whether that property, being the subject matter of the suit, has to be excluded while ascertaining the means of the petitioner also arises in this revision.

6. Respondents have no case that petitioner is possessed of any property other than the subject matter of the suit viz. a small piece of land having an area of 6 cents and the building thereon. A simple mortgage has been executed by the petitioner in favour of respondents in respect of that property. The suit itself is to get that mortgage declared as invalid as one executed under threat and coercion. It cannot therefore be said that there is a suppression on the part of petitioner in regard to that property. Respondents cannot also contend that there has been a suppression since they claim mortgage rights over the very same property on the strength of the mortgage deed challenged in the petition. The finding of the court below that petitioner had not disclosed his entire assets is therefore erroneous and a material irregularity has been committed by the court below in refusing relief for that reason.

7. Learned counsel for respondents would then point out that petitioner is