The court's jurisdiction is restricted to ascertaining whether the allegations in the petition reveal a cause of action, and it should not make elaborate inquiries into the merits of the suit at the stage of considering the application for permission to sue as an indigent person.

1. Revision petitioner is the respondent in O. P. 76 of 1984 of the Sub Court, Palghat. The respondent herein as petitioner filed the O. P. praying that he may be allowed to institute the suit as an indigent person. The learned Sub Judge allowed the petition finding that the respondent is not in a position to pay the court fee.

2. The challenge in the revision petition is that as no cause of action has been made out in the petition the court below should have rejected it. Counsel contended that merely because a person is as indigent person the court is not to automatically allow the petition in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions in Order XXXIII R.S. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the revision petitioner did not raise any objection in the counter statement questioning the cause of action and therefore ie cannot raise it for the first time before this court in revision.

3. In a pauper application, whenever a question is raised by the respondent that the petition does not disclose a cause of action it is incumbent upon the court to record a finding one way or the other. In a case, where such an objection is raised and the court failed to decide it the order will be defective. Under Order XXXIII R.5 Clause (d) it is mandatory upon the court to reject the application for permission to sue as an indigent person, where the allegations do not disclose cause of action. 0.33 R.6 provides that where the court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in R.S, it shall fix a day with notice to the opposite party and Government Pleader for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his pauperism and for hearing any evidence which may be adduced in disproof thereof. It is at such a stage that the revision petitioner tiled objections. In the objection the revision petitioner has no case that the allegations in the petition do not disclose a cause of action. Having not raised such a contention it is futile to assail the order of the court on the ground that it failed to consider whether there is cause of action or not.

4. Even on merits the revision petitioner does not have a case worthy of acceptance. In the petition the respondent has given a clear narration of his case. The averments in the petition definitely reveal a cause of action to institute the suit. Order XXXIII R.5 clause (d) empowers the court to reject the petition if the allegations do not show a cause of action. The above provision itself makes the position clear that the court has to reject the petition only if the allegations do not show a cause of action. Whether the allegations would succeed finally or not or whether it lacks intrinsic merit or truth is not at all relevant at the stage when the application is considered. The court is not concerned as to whether the claim made by the petitioner is likely to succeed or not. The court is primarily concerned only whether the allegations made in the petition, if accepted as true, would disclose a cause of action. At this stage the defence open to the defendant is far from relevant. In a case where allegations in the petition, prima facie, reveal cause of action the court is not to embark upon enquiry as to whether the allegations are true or whether there is any chance for the petitioner to succeed in the claim made by him. The provisions in Order XXXIII R.5 Clause (d) makes the position crystal clear that the jurisdiction of the court is restricted to ascertain whether on the allegations a cause of action exists. In other words, jurisdiction does not extend to trial of issues which must be left for decision at the hearing of the suit. It has been held in AIR 1962 S. C. 941 (Vijaya Pradap v. Dukgh Harem Nath) that the defence which the defendant may raise upon the merits of the suit is not a matter to be considered at the stage when application for permission to sue as an indigent person is considered by the court and that the court is not co