Judgment The petitioner filed an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The Court-fee payable was Rs.329-15-0. He alleged that he was possessed of the plaint B-Schedule properties, which he valued at Rs.600 but those properties were subject to an encumbrance for Rs.450. Therefore he did not have the means to pay the Court-fee. The respondent denied that the petitioner was a pauper. They also alleged that he had fraudulently suppressed the existence of certain moveables. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the petitioner was not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the Court-fee. He also found that the petitioner was guilty of fraudulent suppression of one of his assets, viz., two bulls. The petitioner denied having any bulls, while R.W.1, the 2nd respondent, deposed that he was possessed of bulls and goats. The learned Judge acted on the evidence of R.W.2 the mortgagee of the petitioner’s land who said that the petitioner had two small bulls worth Rs.120. On these facts the learned Judge found that there was a fraudulent suppression of assets, which must result in the dismissal of the application under Order 33, Civil Procedure Code. He relied on the decisions of this Court in Kuppuswami Naidu v. Varadappa Naidu1, and Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi Ammal2, in support of his conclusion. He therefore dismissed the petition. The finding that the petitioner was possessed of two bulls is a finding of fact; though I am not satisfied with the finding, it is binding on me in revision. That finding by itself, however, would not lead to the dismissal of the application. Neither the decision in Kuppuswami Naidu v. Varadappa Naidu1, nor that in Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi Ammal2, should be understood as laying down that even the omission to mention the most insignificant moveable must itself lead to a dismissal of the application for leave to file the suit in forma pauperis. Indeed Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., in Kuppuswami Naidu v. Varadappa Naidu1, referring to Mt.Chamela Kuar v. Purusottam Das3, distinguished that case on the ground that there the omission related to trifling moveable properties a couple of trunks and an almirah. In Ramakrishna Chetti v. Govindammal4, Venkatarama Ayyar, J., discussed the scope of the said two decisions. The learned Judge pointed out that the rule laid down in those decisions must be limited to cases where a suppression is deliberate and not bona fide. In Ramakrishna Chetti v. Govindammal4, Venkatarama Ayyar, J., discussed the scope of the said two decisions. The learned Judge pointed out that the rule laid down in those decisions must be limited to cases where a suppression is deliberate and not bona fide. I accept that as the correct law on the point. In my opinion, to find out whether an omission was deliberate and mala fide one test is to ascertain whether the intention was to conceal the omitted item, because if that were included, the Court would find that the petitioner had means to pay the Court-fee. To give a concrete illustration, if the Court-fee payable is, say, Rs. 1000 and the petitioner seeking leave to file the suit in forma pauperis has omitted to disclose some moveable property worth Rs.50 or Rs.100 it cannot be said that the omission was deliberate and mala fide for the obvious reason that even if he had mentioned it, he could still have easily maintained that he was not in a position to pay the Court-fee of Rs.1000 and, therefore, he was entitled to sue as a pauper. It is quite true that a mere statement by the petitioner that the omitted item of property is of no value would not suffice. In Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi Ammal2, for instance, it was said that the equity of redemption in certain property which was omitted to be mentioned was of no value, but the learned Judges were not prepared to accept that statement. Actually, it appeared in that case that the so-called pauper had sold certain immoveable property for a sum of Rs.1300 after she had been allowed to file the suit in forma pauperis. In the present case, keeping this circumstance in mind, I cannot agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that there has been a deliberate and mala fide suppression of any item of property, assuming that the petitioner had owned two bulls. I therefore allow the Civil Revision Petition and grant the appli R.M. ------ Petition allowed.