The duty of the petitioner to make a full and accurate verified statement of his or her properties and the rejection of the application for permission if there is a deliberate omission to include all the assets. The importance of coming to court with clean hands and making a full and complete disclosure of movable and immovable property assets by an applicant seeking permission to sue as an indigent person.

Balasubramanyan, J.

This appeal is by the plaintiff. He filed a suit for settlement of accounts and for damages. The relief of accounting was valued at Rs. 15,000/- and the nominal damages was estimated as Rs. 1,000/- and court fee was paid under S.35(1) and S.22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The second defendant Kerala Financial Corporation filed a written statement disputing the plaint claim. The 8th defendant who was impleaded subsequently as a purchaser in revenue auction of some property belonging to Western Ghats Industrial Development Corporation of which the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 7 were said to be partners, also filed a written statement.

2. On 11.10.1994 the plaintiff made two applications. I.A. 1041 of 1994 was made seeking an amendment of the plaint to incorporate a claim for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 2,62,542.80 with interest thereon and to set aside the sale of 2.50 acres of land belonging to the plaintiff and blocked in R.S.260/3B of VemomAmsom. In view of these additional prayers the plaintiff wanted to amend the valuation portion of the plaint to include the claim for damages of Rs. 2,62,542 and valued the relief of setting aside the sale at Rs. 2,65,000/-. Valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee including the original valuation of Rs. 15,000/- for the relief of accounting was thus proposed to be enhanced to Rs. 5,42,512.80. Court fee payable thereon was to be Rs. 41,420. Giving credit to the court fee already paid on the plaint namely Rs. 1,580/-, the balance court fee payable by the plaintiff as per the proposed amendment was Rs. 39,840/-. The other application I. A. 1Q66 of 1994 was filed under 0.33R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to prosecute the suit as an indigent person if the amendment of the plaint prayed for were to be allowed. Both the applications were opposed. On 28.3.1995, the application for amendment of the plaint I. A.1041 of 1994 was allowed. The application I. A. 1066 of 1994 for permission to further prosecute the suit as an indigent person was disallowed finding that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint as amended was one for and on behalf of a firm of which he was a partner and since it was not shown that all the partners of all the firm are indigent persons, the plaintiff could not be given permission under O.33 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also found that the plaintiff while making the application under O.33 R.1 of the Code and had not set out in full the assets held by him either in his individual capacity or as a partner of a firm and in view of the failure to disclose the properties, he was disentitled to the permission sought for. This is challenged before us by the plaintiff.

3. InM/s. Grand Buoy Enterprises v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (1994(2) KLT 697) it has now been held that when a firm is the plaintiff and a request for permission under O.33 of the Code is made the requirement is that the partners of the firm should be shown as indigent persons. If on the facts of the case, the conclusion of the trial court that the suitispursued by the plaintiff for and on behalf of the firm is justified, obviously the conclusion that the plaintiff has not shown that all the partners of the firm are indigent persons and consequently the plaintiff cannot pursue the present suit as an indigent person is perfectly justified. Though the plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that the other partners who are defendants 5 to 7 have retired from the partnership and the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of the firm and that the other partners had executed an agreement leaving the entire assets and liabilities to the plaintiff as the sole proprietor of the firm, a reading of the plaint would clearly show that the relief claimed by the plaintiff is a relief that is due to the firm by the alleged inaction or improper action of the second defendant Kerala Financial Corporation and consequently