ORDER :

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 12/2017 whereby the application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the plaintiffs respondents for suing as indigent person has been allowed. A suit for cancellation and declaration of the relinquishment deed to be void and ineffective qua their rights; partition; permanent and mandatory injunction was preferred by the respondent-applicants Nos.1 to 3 (respondent No. 3, being a minor-through his natural guardian-Mother).

2. An application under Order 33, CPC was also preferred alongwith the suit seeking permission to sue as an indigent. The said application has been allowed vide the order impugned, aggrieved against which the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners non-applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the schedule of properties, as provided under Order 33, Rule 2, CPC which is a mandate, having not been filed by the applicants alongwith their application, it could not have been entertained. Learned counsel submitted that the law mandates not only for the submission of the schedule of properties belonging to the applicant but also for a preliminary enquiry as to whether a person is an indigent person. After the said preliminary enquiry, if the Court reaches to the conclusion that the applicant is not an indigent person or the application is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3, the Court shall reject the application. If the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in Rule 5, it shall proceed for hearing on the application in terms of the procedure as prescribed under Rule 7. It is only after the notice being served to the opposite party; examining the witnesses of either party including the applicant, if required; and after hearing the parties, the Court would proceed on to either allow or refuse the application. In the present matter, the Court did not follow the above procedure as mandated by law and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

4. Counsel submitted that even otherwise, the applicants are not indigent and do not deserve to be granted permission to sue as such. In support of his submission learned counsel showed for the perusal of this Court, the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in the proceedings as preferred by the mother of the applicants for maintenance whereupon an order in favour of mother as well as the minor children had been passed directing the father to grant maintenance. He further submitted that the specific facts of LIC policies as well as other movable properties have been concealed by the applicants and therefore also, they do not deserve any indulgence. Moreover the applicants were neither examined by the Court nor was the non-applicant granted any opportunity to oppose the same or to prove to the contrary. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in the case of Dr. D. Hemachandra Sagar and Ors v. D. Prithviraj and Anr.; AIR 2004 Karnataka 33. In Dr. D. Hemachandra's case, the Court held as under:

“11. One of the arguments presented before me by the respondents' learned Advocate is that this proceeding is hotly contested, and that the respondents have not been able to show to the Court that the plaintiffs possessed adequate source or resource. It is not the question of feasibility of the opposite party to be able to exp