JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Plaintiff filed a suit in forma pauperis for declaration that his dismissal from service was wrongful and that he is entitled to reinstatement with arrears of wages. In the alternative, he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3687.75 paid by way of damages. The suit was valued at Rs. 3687.75 paise on which court-fees of Rs. 450.75 paise was payable. In the schedule attached to the plaint, a list of properties belonging to the Plaintiff was given which were valued at Rs. 45.00. Plaintiff verified i the plaint saying that he had no other properties. After notice was served, Hindusthan Steel, Limited (Defendant) filed an objection that Plaintiff had sufficient means to pay the Court-fee. Evidence was taken and parties were heard under Order XXXIII, Rule 7, Code of the Civil Procedure. In course of cross-examination, the Plaintiff made the following statement: From 22-12-1955 I got the service. On 19-4-1961 I was dismissed. I have got money in Provident Fund Account. I cannot say what amount there is. I was deducting Rs. 34/ - towards provident fund etc. in every month. My pay was Rs. 94/ -. In a year one month's pay is to be deposited towards provident fund account. Company is also to pay something but I cannot say what amount was paid by the Company have not put in a petition for withdrawal so far. It is not a fact that I am deliberately not filing petition for withdrawal. It was mentioned in para -2 of the plaint that Plaintiff was dismissed on 19-4-1961 with retrospective effect, from 3-12-1960. On Plaintiff's own case that he was depositing in Provident Fund at the rate of Rs. 34.00 per month, he has deposited about Rs. 2000/ - in his Provident Fund Account. We need not take consideration the share contributed by Defendant No. 2. There can be no dispute that the money kept in the Provident fund belongs to the Petitioner. The amount lying in the Provident Fund is more than sufficient to pay the requisite Court-fees. 34.00 per month, he has deposited about Rs. 2000/ - in his Provident Fund Account. We need not take consideration the share contributed by Defendant No. 2. There can be no dispute that the money kept in the Provident fund belongs to the Petitioner. The amount lying in the Provident Fund is more than sufficient to pay the requisite Court-fees. Plaintiff did not make any averment in his application seeking permission to sue in forma pauperis that the had any deposit in the Provident Fund Account though be could have given an explanation in the application or in his evidence that the amount lying to his credit in the Fund could not be withdrawn and, utilised towards purchase of Court-fees. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the aforesaid fact came to the conclusion that the Petitioner deliberately suppressed to mention in the plaint the factum of his ownership of the money to his credit in the Provident Fund Account. The learned Munsif held that the Petitioner did not present his application for permission to sue as pauper in the manner prescribed by Order XXXIII, Rule 2. He accordingly rejected the application. Against his order refusing the Plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis the civil revision has been filed. 2. Mr. Das contended that the opposite party did not take any objection of the counter that the Petitioner had a provident fund account and that the Petitioner having brought the suit for a declaration that his dismissal was wrongful he could not have withdraw the provident fund amount for, payment of Court -fees. 3. To appreciate the contention, relevant law may be examined. Order XXXIII, Rule 1, CPC defines a pauper. Explanation to the rule says that a person is a "pauper" when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable .)... him to PAY the fee prescribed by Jaw for the plaint in such suit, or, where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject-matter-of the suit. With effect from 7-5-1954 a proviso was added after the explanation in Orissa. It says that in determining whether such person in possessed of sufficient means the property that is subject-matter of the suit shall be always excluded. The contention of Mr. With effect from 7-5-1954 a proviso was added after the explanation in Orissa. It says that in determining whether such person in possessed of sufficient means the property that is subject-matter of the suit shall be always excluded. The contention of Mr. Das that the amount deposited in the Provident Fund is the subject-matter of the suit is without substance. The subject-matter of the suit is dismissal order. It was open to the Petitioner to apply for withdrawal of the provident fund amount whether there was any dismissal or not. If the Company refused to pay provident fund amount on some ground or other, then alone the Petitioner could say that the provident fund amount was not liable for the payment of Court-fee. Merely because the Petitioner challenges the dismissal order, the provident fund amount cannot constitute the subject matter of the suit. The test is whether the Defendant could have urged that the suit is liable to be dismissed if the Petitioner had withdrawn the provident fund amount prior to the suit. The answer must be only in the negative. 4. Order XXXIII, Rule 2 prescribes the contents of the application. It lays down that every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard plaints in suits: a schedule of any movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. The verification given in the plaint suppressing the existence of provident fund to the credit of the Petitioner was in contravention of Rule 2. The Petitioner stated that he had properties worth Rs. 45/ - only. 5. Order XXXIII, Rule 5 mentions the various circumstances under which the application shall be rejected. The rule far as relevant, may be quoted: 5.The Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper (a) where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3, or b) Where the applicant is not a pauper. The Petitioner clearly comes within the chief of Clause (a) as the petition was not framed in the manner prescribed by Rule 2 as already indicated. There is also contravention of Clause (b) as the Petitioner has provident fund mount at least to the tune of Rs. 2000/ -, the Court-fee payable being only Rs. 456.75p. The Petitioner clearly comes within the chief of Clause (a) as the petition was not framed in the manner prescribed by Rule 2 as already indicated. There is also contravention of Clause (b) as the Petitioner has provident fund mount at least to the tune of Rs. 2000/ -, the Court-fee payable being only Rs. 456.75p. The application was therefore liable to be rejected under Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 5. 6. Mr. Das contended that as the opposite party did not take specific objection regarding the existence of provident fund amount, the petition is not liable to be -dismissed even though the matter came into light at the state of evidence. His contention is not sound. Order XXXIII, Rule 6 prescribes that where the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in Rule 5, it shall fix a day (of which at least ten days' clear notice shall he given to the opposite party and the Government pleader) for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his pauperism, and for hearing any evidence which may he adduced in disproof thereof. In this case, the Court initially did not reject the application on any of the grounds stated in Rule 5 as on the face of the application and from the statement on oath given by the Petitioner at the time of presentation of the application, the Court was not in a position to know that Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 5 had been contravened. Suppression of material facts regarding an the properties belonging to the Petitioner did not give an accurate picture to the Court whether the Petitioner was a pauper. The Court accordingly proceeded to take evidence on the question of pauperism under Rule 7. Under Order XXXIII, Rule 7(2) the Court shall also hear any argument which the parties may desire to offer on the question whether, on the face of the application and of the evidence (if any) taken by the Court as herein provided, the applicant is or is not subject to any of the prohibitions specified in Rule 5. Clause (3) says that the Court shall then either allow or refuse to allow the applicant to sue B a pauper. Clause (3) says that the Court shall then either allow or refuse to allow the applicant to sue B a pauper. Clause (2) thus clearly empowers the Court to take into consideration the evidence given by the parties for determination of the question of pauperism and the learned trial Court followed the right course. From the evidence of the Petitioner it transpired that he had provident fund account and that this fact was suppressed from the plaint attached to the petition. Neither in the application nor in his evidence the Petitioner gave any explanation that the provident;, fund amount could not have been withdrawn and could not have been converted into liquid money for purchase of Court-fees. 7. M. Das placed reliance on AIR 1954 Mad 537 . After having carefully gone through the decision I am satisfied that it lays down the correct law. His Lordship observed as follows: The question was not whether the Petitioner had some sort of title to the provident fund but whether having regard to its incidence he had reason to believe and actually did believe that it was not an asset available to him. There are no grounds whatever for rejecting his explanation and it must be held that in omitting to disclose the provident fund the Petitioner acted bona fide. In this respect this case differs from the two decisions cited above. In both of them the finding was that there was fraudulent suppression. These decisions lay down a salutary rule but it must be limited to cases where the suppression is deliberate and not bona fide. To extend that rule to cases of all reasons even when they are due to inadvertence or mistake, would result in grave injustice and no warrant can be found for it in the provisions of the Code. In that particular case, the Lordship accepted the explanation of the Petitioner and held that the non-disclosure was not mala fide. The crucial test therefore is whether the suppression was deliberate and mala fide and not due to inadvertence or take. The Petitioner's conduct in this case is wholly indefensible. Not only there was an omission of the existence of the provident fund account in the application but there is nothing in the evidence of the Petitioner giving any rational explanation for the suppression. The Petitioner's conduct in this case is wholly indefensible. Not only there was an omission of the existence of the provident fund account in the application but there is nothing in the evidence of the Petitioner giving any rational explanation for the suppression. If the Petitioner were in service and had a litigation with third party he could have applied for withdrawal of the provident fund amount is his money and not of the company's. Even assuming that in certain contingencies the amount could be forfeited the title to the fund continues to vest in the Petitioner until actual forfeiture occurs. In the absence of such a case it was frivolous for Mr. Das to advance contention that the provident fund could not be withdrawn as it was liable to forfeiture in certain contingencies. The non-disclosure of the provident fund account in this case is deliberate and not bona fide and is not due to inadvertence or take. Even now that is not the Petitioner's case. 8. The judgment of the Court below is unassailable. In the result, the civil revision fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed