This revision is preferred against the order of the learned City Civil Judge declining to grant permission to the petitioner to institute a suit in forma pauperis. The petitioner is a member of a joint family and the proposed suit is one for partition. There is no dispute that excluding the properties which are the subject-matter of the suit, he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the requisite court-fee. The ground on which his petition was dismissed is that there is a provident fund standing in his name with the Port Trust Madras, where he is employed and this was not disclosed in his application to sue in forma pauperis. This decision is based upon the decision of this Court in Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi1 which in turn approves of the decision in Kuppuswami Naidu v. Varadappa Naidu2. In Kuppuswami Naidu v. Varadappa Naidu,2 the petitioner owned certain properties which were subject to a mortgage. The application to institute the suit in forma pauperis omitted all reference to them. Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J., found that it was not a case of unintentional or accidental omission, but a fraudulent suppression. It was contended in justification of the n