Inder Dev Dua, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision by Kewal Krishan plaintiff is directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 15-11/1966, whereby the petitioner-pliantiffs application for permission to sue as a pauper was disallowed. ( 2 ) THE trial Court on 23-6/1966, called for a report from the Collector on the petitioner s application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil P. C. The report was required to be sent to the Court by 12-5/1966. After several hearings, on 15/11/1966, the learned Subordinate Judge, in the presence of the counsel both for the plaintiff and for the defendant, considered the report of the Collector and on the basis of that report, disallowed the plaintiff s application. The report, which is really made by a Naib-Tehsil-dar, and is dated 16/5/1966, read as under : "this is a pauper case filled by Sh. Kewal Krishan s/o Shri Nathu Ram. He was called in this office and his statement was recorded. He gave two witnesses in support of his statement. From the statement of the petitioner, it appears that he (has) seven brothers who are employed and his father is also doing some business. The petitioner himself is an earning member. With the earning of the petitioner and help from his brothers he can arrange for the Court-fees stamp charges. ( 3 ) IN view of the above, T cannot recommend his case and I am of view that he can easily arrange for the Court-fees stamp charges. ( 4 ) THIS report was sent on to the Tehsildar, who forwarded to the A. D. M. (Judicial) who sent it on to the Court. ( 5 ) THIS, in my view, is a hardly satisfactory way of dealing with pauper applications. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is expected itself to hold an enquiry into the question of pauperism. The report from the Collector is to be called for in cases where the Collector is supposed to be better fitted to hold enquiries. Such is not the case before me. Only if the learned Subordinate Judge had cared to look at the report, he would have discovered that a report of this type can hardly be proper material for holding that the petitioner-plaintiff has sufficient means to be able to pay court-fee. Such is not the case before me. Only if the learned Subordinate Judge had cared to look at the report, he would have discovered that a report of this type can hardly be proper material for holding that the petitioner-plaintiff has sufficient means to be able to pay court-fee. One outstanding error which underlines the report of the Naib-Tehsildar is that lie has taken into account the financial capacity of the petitioner s brothers and father. This, normally speaking, is not to be taken into account. In Sharan Singh v. Mt. Man Kaw (1) it was observed by Tek Chand, J. that in dealing with pauper applications, the capacity of the plaintiff himself to pay the court-fee and not that of his next friend or relations is to be considered. In the reported case, the means of the adoptive father, the natural father and uncle of the minor-plaintiff were taken into account. This was held to be a material irregularity and the High Court allowed the revision. In Mohammad Asraf v. Muhammad Bihi, (2) Abdur Rahman, J. also observed that in case of a minor plaintiff, his resources are to be considered and the fact that his next friend is fairly rich, is immaterial. There too, the revision was allowed, as the court below was held to have acted with material irregularity. This view seems to me to be correct. ( 6 ) IN the case in hand, so far as the plaintiff s own resources are concerned, there is precious little to be said in support of the Naib-Tehsildar s report. The Court cannot blindly and automatically adopt the report which is only to help the Court in judicially determining the ability of the plaintiff to pay court-fee. It is a matter for regret that the Tehsildar and the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) did not apply their own mind to the report of the Naib-Tehsildar and forwarded the same as if with their approval. It must be remembered that the issue of pauperism is to be decided by the Court and delegation and sub-delegation of this duty and power is not easy to sustain. The learned Subordinate Judge has completely ignored this vital aspect and has dealt with the matter, in common with the A. D. M. (Judicial ). the Tehsildar and the Naib-Tehsildar, more in an administrative than in a judicial manner. The learned Subordinate Judge has completely ignored this vital aspect and has dealt with the matter, in common with the A. D. M. (Judicial ). the Tehsildar and the Naib-Tehsildar, more in an administrative than in a judicial manner. Such a course cannot be approved by this Court. ( 7 ) FOR all the foregoing reasons. I unhesitatingly allow this reversion and setting aside the order of the Court below, send the case back to it. for a proper judicial enquiry into the plaintiff-petitioner s pauperism and for further proceedings in accordance with law as contained in order 33, Civil P. C. The plaintiff-petitioner is directed to appear in the Court below on 28-10-1968 when a short date would be given for further proceedings. As there is no appearance for the respondent, there is no order as to costs in this Court.