( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises a short question on the meaning and scope of Rules 5 and 6 of Or. XXXIII of the; CPC. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the petition are these : the respondent was an employee in the Vijaya Bank, Ltd. , (The bank) which is the petitioner before me. He was removed from serrvice by an order dt. 31-3-1970. He challenged the said order as a, wrongful termination of his services in a suit instituted for damages. The suit was filed in forma pauperis. During the preliminary enquiry held by the Court below, the Bank raised an objection, among others, that the contents of the application do not show a cause of action. The respondent, in support of the merits of his claim and the property owned by him produced some evidence. So did the Bank to prove the contrary. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is a pauper and that the allegations in his application do show a cause of action. Before, I proceed further, it is better that I set out the relevant portion in para 7 of the order of the court below, which reads as follows :"i am of opinion that at this stage, there is no material to say that there is no cause of action at all against the respondents. It is true that he has written letters and accepted the amounts seemingly towards full settlement; but still in the plaint, he has explained under what circumstances he had to write the said letter and accept the said amount. He has further averred that he was dismissed wrongfully and the order passed by the Respondents cannot be sustained in law. When that is the case, by the mere fact of Exts. D2, D3 and D4 and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain, I cannot now hold that he has no cause of action to bring the suit. The matter has to be fully examined at the right time, by giving opportunities to both the parties. " ( 3 ) FROM the nature of the order, it is apparent that the trial Court refused to consider the rebuttal evidence produced by the Bank on the limited question that falls to be determined under Rule 5 of Or. XXXIII. The matter has to be fully examined at the right time, by giving opportunities to both the parties. " ( 3 ) FROM the nature of the order, it is apparent that the trial Court refused to consider the rebuttal evidence produced by the Bank on the limited question that falls to be determined under Rule 5 of Or. XXXIII. For the Bank, it was insisted that the Court should consider its evidence. But the Court was of the opinion that at that stage and without giving further opportunity to the respondent, to explain, the evidence of the bank cannot be considered before me, the approach made by the Court below is criticised by mr. M. N. Hegde for the Bank. Mr. Subba Rao, Counsel for the respondent, however, sought to support the order by submitting that the Court cannot consider the evidence adduced by the Bank on the question whether the allegations in the application show a cause of action or not, and that, that question should be determined solely on the plaint averments. He further submitted that the Court, in the instant case, has considered all the evidence adduced by both the parties to the suit. ( 4 ) LET us now turn to the relevant rules. Order XXXIII, Rule 1 CPC. , provides that suits may be instituted in forma paueris. Rule 2 states what particulars that application should contain. Rule 3 provides for the mode of presentation of such an application. Rule 4 provides :"4 Examination of applicant- rule 5 provides : - " 5 Rejection of application- rule 6 provides :- old "6. Notice of day for receiving evidence of applicant's pauperism- 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 be 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 be adduced in disproof thereof. NEW 6. NEW 6. Where the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in R. 5, it shall nevertheless fix a day (of which at least ten days' clear notice shall be given to the opposite party and to the Goverment pleader) for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce to prove that the application is not subject to any of the prohibitions in Rule 5 and for hearing any evidence which may be adduced to the contrary. "rule 7 provides :"7. Procedure at hearing- (1) On the day so fixed or as soon thereafter as may be convenient, the Court shall examine the witnesses (if any) produced by either party, and may examine the applicant or his agent, and shall make a memorandum of the substance of their evidence. (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 arid 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. (3) The Court shall then either allow or refuse to allow the applicant to sue as a pauper. Before Rule 6 was amended, the parties had the liberty to adduce evidence only in proof of the pauperism of the applicant and the opposite party had the liberty to adduce evidence in disproof thereof. The amendment to the said rule has made a, considerable departure. It states 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 for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce to prove that the application is not subject to any of the prohibitions in Rule 5 and the opposite party has the liberty to adduce evidence to the contrary. In other words, the evidence is not confined only to the question relating to pauperism. ( 5 ) THE combined effect of Rules 3 to 7 with Mysore Amendments, is if the Court thinks fit, it may examine the applicant or his agent when the applicant to sue as a pauper is allowed to appear by agent. That examination is only on the limited question of the merits of the applicant's claim and his property. ( 5 ) THE combined effect of Rules 3 to 7 with Mysore Amendments, is if the Court thinks fit, it may examine the applicant or his agent when the applicant to sue as a pauper is allowed to appear by agent. That examination is only on the limited question of the merits of the applicant's claim and his property. At this stage, the opposite party has no locus standi. It can reject the application to sue as a pauper, on any one of the grounds set out under Rule 5. If the Court sees no reason to reject the application, then comes the second stage. Then it has to give notice to the Government Pleader and the opposite party and fix a date for receiving such evidence as the applcant may adduce to prove that his application is not subject to any of the prohibitions contained in Rule 5 and the opposite party is entitled to lead evidence to the contrary showing that the application to sue forma paueris should be rejected on any one of the prohibitions in Rule 5. On a consideration of this evidence and after hearing the parties, the Court shall then allow or reject the application to sue as a pauper. If the application is allowed, then, comes the third stage. It shall be registered and shall be deemed to be the plaint in the suit. The institution of the suit relates back to the date of the filing of the application. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the lespcndent has not only adduced evidence regarding his pauperism but he has also produced evidence to show that the allegations in the application did give a cause of action to maintain a suit for wrongful terminaion. On behalf of the Bank, oral evidence and the documents Exts. D2 to D4 were produced. ( 7 ) THE question which immediately falls to be considered is whether the Court below has considered all the evidence adduced by the parties before reaching the conclusion that the allegations in the application of the respondent do disclose a cause of action. On a perusal of the order, it is not possible for me to hold that the Court below considered all the evidence adduced by both the parties. It appears to me, that the Court was of the opinion that Exts. On a perusal of the order, it is not possible for me to hold that the Court below considered all the evidence adduced by both the parties. It appears to me, that the Court was of the opinion that Exts. D2 to D4 produced on behalf of the Bank cannot be considered by it at this stage without giving further opportunity to the respondent. It was also of the opinion that the question whether the allegations in the application disclose a cause of action or not should be decided only on the averments in the plaint. This approach, in my opinion, is wholly against the scope of Rules 5 to 7 of Or. XXXIII CPC. Rule 5 added by the Madras Amendment which is similar to Rule 6 in question, came up for consideration before the High Court of Madras in Anganna Gounaan v. Angamuthu Gonndan, AIR. 1956 Mad. 271. . Govinda Menon, J. , who spoke for the Bench, said at page 273, ihus :"the amendment, therefore, makes a vital difference in that whatever evidence the applicant was entitled to adduce was only in respect of his pauperism and the respondent may adduce evidence in disproof thereof under the unamended rule; after the amendment the applicant is allowed to prove that the application is not subject tc any of the prohibitions contained in Rule 5 and the opposite party can adduce evidence to the contrary. " ( 8 ) THE above principles have been followed by Kunhamed Kutti, J. in P. P. Lakshminarayana Upadhyaya v. The premier Bank of India, ltd. , Madras, 1968 (1) Mad. L. J. 333 at 335. The contention of Mr. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent that the allegations in the plaint or application alone must be looked into for determining the cause of action, cannot be accepted in the instant case. The decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh, haran Nath Singh, AIR. 1962 SC. 941, is of no assistance here. The Supreme Court was considering in that case the scheme of the old Rules 3 to 7 of Or. XXXIII, cpc. , and it had no occasion to consider the scope of the new Rule 6. The decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh, haran Nath Singh, AIR. 1962 SC. 941, is of no assistance here. The Supreme Court was considering in that case the scheme of the old Rules 3 to 7 of Or. XXXIII, cpc. , and it had no occasion to consider the scope of the new Rule 6. As I have already stated, under the old Rule 6, the applicant may adduce evidence in proof of his pauperism alone, whereas under the new Rule 6, he has the right to adduce evidence to prove that his application is not subject to any of the prohibitions contained in Rule 5 and the opposite party may adduce any evidence to the contrary. When both the parties produced evidence on any matter falling under Rule 5, then, the Court has to consider that evidence and cannot say that it will consider only the averments in the application. ( 9 ) IN the result, since the lower Court has not considered the evidence adduced by the parties, on the limited questions falling under Rule 5, i have no other alternative except to allow the petition, set aside its order and send back the case with a direction to consider the evidence in the case and dispose of the application in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .