K. Ramakrishnan, J.

First Respondent in O.P. (Indigent) No.2/2012 of Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery is the revision petitioner herein. The first respondent herein as petitioner filed the above indigent original petition for permission to sue as an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the revision petitioner herein had filed a false petition before Mananthawady police against the first respondent herein alleging commission of offences under section 341, 323, 294B and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and the police registered a crime as crime No.497/2007 and later submitted final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mananthawady, where it was taken on file as C.C.288/2008. According to the first respondent herein the case was registered and final report was filed at the influence of the 5th respondent. So all the respondents were responsible for filing a false complaint against the petitioner. The first respondent was acquitted by the court below, he suffered loss of reputation on account of the false implication in the case and also suffered mental agony. So he estimated damages of 50,00,000/-from the respondents. He had filed the suit for damages to the tune of 50,00,000/-payable by the respondents in the original petition. He had mentioned in the petition itself that he has no properties of his own. He has got only personal belongings, list of which has been made available in the petition. He had also stated that, though he was having power of attorney to look after the properties of his wife, there was no income from the property and now he is residing away from his family members alone in a rented house and he had also filed an application for maintenance before the Revenue Divisional Officer from his wife and son as both were working. He has no means to pay the requisite court fee, so he prayed for permission to sue as an indigent person.

3. Respondents 1, 2 and 5 entered appearance and filed counter statements denying the allegations and also their liability to pay compensation. They also denied the allegation that the petitioner who is the first respondent herein has no means to pay the requisite court fee, he has got properties and capable of raising the court fee. They have also contended that, there is no cause of action to file the suit and so they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Though notice was issued to the District Collector and Government Pleader entered appearance, no report regarding the means of the first respondent herein was filed before the court below. The petitioner in the court below who is the first respondent herein was examined as PW1 and Exts.Al to A19 were marked on his side. He was cross examined by the respondents; no contra evidence was adduced on their side. After considering the evidence on record, the court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner has proved that he has no properties or means to raise the fund to pay the requisite court fee and granted permission to sue as an indigent person and numbered the suit as O.S.120/2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed by the first respondent, the revision petitioner herein.

5. Heard, Smt. Celine Joseph, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Kuriachan P.V., counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri. Johnson, Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent and others remained absent.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed the required things to be disclosed as provided under Order 33, Rule 2 and suppression of material facts will entitle the petition to be dismissed. He had not mentioned about the account in the bank and he had also not mentioned about the amounts available under 'Karuna Development Society'. So there is suppression of facts. He had also submitted that, though his wife and son are employed and they are having properties