The court has the discretion to allow a plaintiff to file a suit in forma pauperis even if the plaintiff has not strictly complied with the requirements of Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, and that the defendant cannot use technicalities to obstruct the trial of the case.

1. - This revision petition is directed against the order passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur on October 4, 1979, whether he accepted the application of the plaintiff and permitted him to file the suit in form a pauperise under O. 33 R. 1 C.P.C.

2. The petitioner has two grievances against this order. His first grievance is that schedule has not been annexed alongwith the application under. O. 33 R. 1 C.P.C. and the another is that he is guilty of suppression of material fact that he has a share in the ancestral property.

3. Before answer the aforesaid two points raised would like to observe that in the instant case as required by law the learned Addl. District Judge before adjudicating upon the application had issued notice on December 22,1976 to the Collector, Jodhpur who ordered an inquiry regarding the financial status of the plaintiff and thereafter vide his letter, dated March 17, 1977 sent a reply to the court, in this reply it has been mentioned that an inquiry was got conducted through the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur and after a detailed inquiry it was known that the plaintiff is extremely a poor man. He has no means of livelihood or residential house to stay in. He is a casual labour and his financial position is not such that he can pay the court fee.

4. Regarding the first question about not filing the list of belongings in the schedule, suffice it to say that the application is accompanied by an affidavit wherein the plaintiff has stated that he has no property except two old pents, two shirts and one bedroll costing Rs. 25/- which are in torn condition. It could not be expected of a slum dweller to be meticulous about filing a list of the property in the schedule which is not with him. It bat been demonstratively shown by his affidavit which is fully corroborated by the letter of the Collector, Jodhpur that he is too poor to be burdened with court fee. He has the shelter of the sky and torn out apparel to wrap. If the technicalities are permitted to play a vital role it would not only deny the course of justice but would frustrate the object underlying O. 33 C.P.C. hence I consider liberally the question of adjudication the matter of payment of court fee. This point has therefore no force.

5. Regarding another question, about non-disclosure of an important fact, suffice it to say that the argument has been raised to be rejected. The defendant could not dare to appear in the witness-box and intended to take advantage of an estray-lying of cross examination that the plaintiff has share in the property of his grand-father of which he has been deprived by his brothers. This fact has again been confirmed on inquiry by Collector, Jodhpur that he has no house of his own to live in. In these circumstances defendant cannot be permitted to raise a question challenging a finding that the plaintiff has right to file a suit in forma pauperise. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with a case under Court-fee and Suit Valuation Act reported in Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla AIR 1961 SC 1299 have held :

"The Court-fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. By recognising that the defendant was entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining petitions preferred by the defendant to the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging court-fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for the trial of the dispute on the merits has been effectively frustrated for nearly five years. We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendants can make by working to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court-fee on his plaint. Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is pr