A plaintiff who has been granted permission to sue as an indigent person cannot be asked to pay the court-fee till the proceedings in the suit come to an end, even if he has come into possession of means during the pendency of the suit.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-applicant had filed a suit against the State of Uttar Pradesh, opposite party, for the recovery of certain amount. He was permitted by the trial court to sue as an indigent person. Subsequently an application was given on behalf of the opposite party on 19-3-1980 (198/c) for withdrawal of the permission given to the applicant to sue as indigent person. The ground taken was that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff applicant had received a sum of about rupees 34,000/- and was, therefore, in a position to pay the Court-fee. It may be mentioned that the court-fee payable was about Rs. 14,000/ -. The plaintiff applicant filed an objection to that application. It was not disputed that the plaintiff had received the aforesaid amount after the filing of the suit but it was averred that out of that amount he paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Bank from which he had borrowed that money for making the security deposit and apart from that he made payments to the Brick-kiln owners for price of bricks and also made payments to the labourers and for transport. Thus, he was not left with any liquid cash with him for paying the court-fee. The trial court has not accepted the case taken by the plaintiff-applicant and has withdrawn the permission given to him to file the suit as indigent person and has directed him to pay the requisite court fee within one month. Aggrieved the plaintiff has filed the present revision under section 115 C. P. C. to revise this order.

( 2 ) A twofold submission was made before me on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant, firstly that the plaintiff-applicant had given an affidavit in support of the objection and that affidavit has not been taken into consideration by the trial court and apart from that at this stage the plaintiff-applicant was not required to give all evidence to prove the various payments which he had made. The second submission was that under Order 33, Rule 11 C. P. C. if permission granted to the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person is withdrawn, the plaintiff cannot be asked to pay the court fee till the proceedings before the trial court have come to an end. The learned chief Standing Counsel has contended that admittedly the plaintiff-applicant received payments of a total sum of about Rs. 34,000/- and that the payment of court-fee being a prior charge, the plaintiff-applicant had means to pay the court-fee and, therefore, he could not be allowed to continue to sue as an indigent person. It was also contended that on an application made under order 33, Rule 9 C. P. C. for withdrawal of suit for permission to sue as an indigent person on the ground that the plaintiff had means to pay the court-fee, all that is relevant is as to whether the plaintiff has means or not. It is not relevant to see as to what he has done of those amounts. After considering the respective submissions in this behalf. I am inclined to agree with the learned Chief Standing Counsel. As noted above court-fee payable was about Rs. 14,000/ -. In the beginning the plaintiff applicant was given permission to sue as an indigent person. During the pendency of the suit he received payments of about Rs. 34,000/ -. In other words he came in possession of means within the meaning of Clause (b) of Rule 9 of Order 33. The word means in this clause signifies some thing acquired by or which has come in the possession of the pauper plaintiff after granting of the petition of leave to sue in forma pauperis and not what was already existing before the application was granted. In the present case, as noted above, the plaintiff did come in possession of the means after he had been given leave to sue in forma pauperis. The question is as to whether disbursement of the money for expenses other than the payment of court-fee is relevant in this behalf. My attention has been invited in this connection to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Rustamii Cawasji v. General Cotton Mills. AIR 1967 Bom 73, in which i