ORDER :- The opposite party filed an application under Order XXXIII, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code for permission to sue as a pauper. She also attached a separate plaint to her pauper application claiming partition of a house and a shop valuing her share at Rs. 26,000/- and odd. This application was contested by the present petitioners before the lower court on the ground mainly that the opposite party was not pauper. The lower court found that she was a pauper and allowed her to sue as pauper. It is against this order that this revision has been filed.

2. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application for permission to sue as a pauper under order XXXIII, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code should have been rejected by the lower court under Rule 5, of Order XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code as it was not framed in accordance with Rule 2 of Order XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code. Rule 2, it is pointed out, provides that an application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits, a schedule of any moveable or immovable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall b