ORDER :- This revision petition is directed against the order of the First Subordinate Judge, Manipur, rejecting the application of the petitioner herein to file the suit in forma pauperis. The learned Judge found that the petitioner had not disclosed in the petition all the moveable and immoveable properties which belonged to him and were in his possession and that therefore he has not acted bona fide and the permission to sue as pauper cannot therefore be granted to him. In revision, it was argued that the amount claimed by him in the suit was over Rs. 6,000/-, for which the Court fee payable was Rs. 540/-, that the evidence was not properly understood by the lower Court, that the lands under the pattas produced by the respondents to show that he possessed other immoveable properties had already been transferred by him long before the petition to sue in forma pauperis was filed, that he did not possess any moveable properties other than those shown in the petition and that even if any of the other properties are treated to be his, their value will not be sufficient to pay the Court fee for the plaint and that therefore the lower court should have allowed his prayer to sue in forma pauperis. 2. In that connection, the petitioner relied on the decision Mt. Bibi Khudai Jatul Kubra v. Mt. Bhagalan reported in AIR 1950 Pat 364 in which a Bench of the Patna High Court have ruled that what the Court had to decide in the first portion of the explanation to Or. 33 R. 1 C.P.C. was not whether the applicant was entitled to property worth rupees one hundred, but whether he was possessed of sufficient means to pay the Court fee and the Court had to enquire into his capacity to raise money to pay the Court fee and where the Court holds that the applicant has got property and does not give a finding on the value of the property, the Court does not properly exercise the jurisdiction in holding that the applicant should not be permitted to sue in forma pauperis. 3. But, in our present case, the lower court had not reached the stage of deciding whether the petitioner was in possession of sufficient means to pay the Court fee of Rs. 540/- as required under O. 33 R. 1 first part of the explanation. 3. But, in our present case, the lower court had not reached the stage of deciding whether the petitioner was in possession of sufficient means to pay the Court fee of Rs. 540/- as required under O. 33 R. 1 first part of the explanation. The lower Court was at the stage whether the petitioner had framed and presented his petition in the manner prescribed by Order 33 Rule 2 C.P.C. Under O. 33 R. 2, a schedule of any moveable or immoveable properties belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, had to be annexed to the application for permission to sue as a pauper and it had to be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. Order 33 Rule 5 provides that the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rule 2. 4. In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner did not show all his moveable or immoveable properties in the schedule to the application. I find that in the application presented to the lower Court for permission to sue in forma pauperis, no such schedule of the moveable or immoveable properties was attached. But in the plaint a schedule was attached in which one Sangam of land in patta No. 54/373-Kh, valued at Rs. 50/-, one dwelling house worth Rs. 20/-and clothing Rs. 10 /-making in all Rs. 50/- were alone mentioned as his properties. 5. Respondents, however, produced 4 Jamabandis, Ext. B/1 to B/4, showing 4 pattas, namely, 54/394 54/497, 54/266 and 54/108 as belonging to the petitioner. When the petitioner was questioned about the said 4 pattas, he gave very prevaricating evidence. Regarding the land under patta No. 54/394 seen in Ext. B/1, he said that his share in the said land has been dedicated to the villagers for excavating a pond and for construction of a School. With regard to the land under patta No. 54/497, he said that it was not a fact that he had such a patta land. But the Jamabandi - Ext. B/2 clearly snowed that the land stood in the petitioners name. With regard to the land under patta No. 54/266, he said that this land had been sold by him more than 3 years ago. But the Jamabandi - Ext. B/2 clearly snowed that the land stood in the petitioners name. With regard to the land under patta No. 54/266, he said that this land had been sold by him more than 3 years ago. That, of course, we may accept as correct, because Ext. B/3, the Jamabandi itself showed that the petitioners name has been struck off therefrom even in 1956. When he was questioned about the land under patta No. 54/108 as seen from Ext. B/4 he said that it was the said land which he had given to the villagers for digging a pond and for construction of a School building. No document showing such dedication of either the land under Ext. B/1 or Ext. B/4 was produced by the petitioner. Thus, the lands under patta numbers Exts. B/1, B/2 and B/4 are lands standing in the name of the petitioner and he has not mentioned any of the said lands in the schedule to his petition or in the plaint. 6. Again, the petitioners evidence disclosed that he owned a cow and calf. That was also not shown in the petition. According to the respondents, the petitioner had many more cows. Again, though the petitioner did not accept that he had a bullock cart, his witness P.W. 2 said that the petitioner owned a bullock cart, though P.W. 2 would say that one of the wheels of the said cart was broken. Again, P.W. 2 said that the petitioner has got a granary of his own in his ingkhol. This fact was not disclosed in the petition and his dwelling house would certainly cost much more than Rs. 20/-. If he has got a granary therein. 7. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not disclosed all his moveable or immoveable properties in the schedule, nor given the estimated value thereof as required under O. 33 R. 2. I cannot blame the lower Court for having come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not acted bona fide in not disclosing all his properties and in not giving the estimated value thereof. Unless all his properties are shown, it will not be possible for the Court to decide whether the petitioner was possessed of sufficient means to pay the Court fee. Unless all his properties are shown, it will not be possible for the Court to decide whether the petitioner was possessed of sufficient means to pay the Court fee. The lower Court was right in rejecting the application on the ground that the petition was not framed in the manner prescribed by Rule 2. When a party comes to Court and seeks its aid to file a suit in forma pauperis, he must not attempt to conceal any of his property. He must show his bona fides and the burden is on him to satisfy the Court that he has disclosed all his properties and that he was really not in a position to pay the Court fee. If the respondents come and show that the petitioner has not disclosed all his properties, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the Court mat he did not act in a mala fide manner and fail to disclose the properties. He can show that by proving either that the properties did not belong to him or that his title to the said properties was not free from doubt or that he had disposed of the said properties long before the petition. The petitioner did not attempt to show any one of these except in respect of one item which, no doubt, he had transferred as early as 1956. 8. In this connection, I may refer to the decision Maharaj Bali v. Mt. Tirath Dei, AIR 1952 All 608 . It was held in that decision that Order 33 Rule 2 was mandatory, and in an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis, the utmost bona fide was required of the petitioner in the matter of disclosure of his assets and any intentional departure from good faith whatever the motive might be, must attract the consequence of a dismissal of the petition and that the fact that even if the suppressed assets were disclosed, it would not affect the question of pauperism, was not relevant. It has been held in D. Ramakrishna Chetti v. D. Govindammal, AIR 1954 Mad 537 , that a person who applied for leave to institute a suit or file an appeal in forma pauperis must act with the utmost good faith and if it turned out that there was an intentional non-disclosure of assets belonging to the petitioner, that would be a ground for dismissing the petition. Applying the said two decisions to our present case, it has to be held that the petitioner has intentionally suppressed his assets in the petition. Even if we take it that the lands under the various patta numbers as seen from Exts. B/1 to B/4, were not available to the petitioner, there has been intentional suppression of his cow and calf, his bullock cart and the granary in his house which are valuable assets. 9. In the decision relied upon by the petitioner, namely, AIR 1950 Pat 364 , the High Court was not satisfied that the omission to mention the assets in that particular case was mala fide. Actually, the lower Court in that case had to hold an enquiry as to whether the particular assets belonged to the petitioner, as he denied his ownership and the lower Court held in the enquiry that 1/4th share in certain land and a house belonged to the petitioner. Thus, the omission was not treated as intentional. In such a case, the lower Court has to go into the further question whether the value of such property will amount to sufficient means in the possession of the petitioner to pay the court fee, which in that case amounted to Rs. 1,200/-. But in our present case, the omission was clearly intentional and hence the petition had to be rejected under Order 33 Rule 5. Hence, the further question whether even if the value of the undisclosed assets was taken into account, the petitioner would have sufficient means to pay the Court fee did not arise at all. 10. For the above reasons, I do not consider it necessary to interfere in revision against the order of the lower Court. The revision petition fails and it is dismissed with the costs of the respondents. Revision petition dismissed.