JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This Civil Revision is directed against on order dismissing on application under Order 33, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The Petitioner presented a 'plaint in the' Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir for partition of the suit properties are for recovery of a share therein, with a prayer for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The Court-fee payable on the plaint was assessed at Rs. 38425. It was alleged that the Petitioner was a pauper and had no other property except his wearing clothes worth Rs. 16/- as described in Schedule 'J' of the petition under Order 33 Rule 1, CPC on the date of presentation of the petition, the next friend of the minor Petitioner made on initial statement on solemn affirmation in terms of Order 33 Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter notices were issued to the opp. parties and the Government. Some of the opposite parties filed counters contending that the Petitioner has got sufficient means to pay the required Court-fees. The Government did not contest the pauperism of the Petitioner. 3. On the date fixed for enquiry, the next friend of the minor Petitioner examined himself as p.w. 1. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence in support of their contentions. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition under Order 33, Rule 1, CPC on the following observations. But the Petitioner deposed nothing to show that he has no other property except the suit property. There is nothing in the Petitioner's evidence to show why the Petitioner should be allowed to sue as a pauper Just because the Petitioner is a minor that affords no reason to permit him to sue as a pauper. 4. Apparently the learned Subordinate Judge has overlooked the initial statement of p.w. 1 made in terms of Order 33, Rule 5, CPC on the date of presentation of the petition. In that statement it was clearly mentioned that the Petitioner had no means to pay the Court-fee required on the plaint and that he was possessed of some wearing clothes only worth Rs. 16/-. The Court was satisfied that the requirement of Order 33, Rule 5, CPC were fulfilled and it is after such satisfaction that notices were issued to the opposite parties and the Government. The legal position has been made dear in Sibasankar Tiadi Vs. 16/-. The Court was satisfied that the requirement of Order 33, Rule 5, CPC were fulfilled and it is after such satisfaction that notices were issued to the opposite parties and the Government. The legal position has been made dear in Sibasankar Tiadi Vs. Koli Tihadhiani and Others that Rule 6 of Order 33, CPC which provides for issue of notice to the opp. party and the Government would not come into operation unless the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner, fulfills the requirement of Rule 5. In their counters, the opposite parties vaguely alleged that the Petitioner was possessed of sufficient means to pay the required Court-fees. They did not give any description of the property which the Petitioner is alleged to be possessed of they did not also specifically allege that the Petitioner has any other source of income.. Neither p.w. 1 was seriously cross-examined nor any evidence was produced by the opposite parties in support of their contentions. Thus they failed to bring to the notice of the Court that the Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of Order 33, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Rule 7 of Order 33 provides as follows: Rule 7(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 applications 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. 3. The Court shall then either allow or refuse to allow the Applicant to sue as a pauper. The expressions 'if any' in Sub-rule 0 and 'may desire to offer' in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 indicate that the Court has jurisdiction to make on order under Sub-rule (3) of the Rule even if no witnesses are produced and no argument is desired to be offered by the parties. In this particular case, the next friend of the minor Petitioner had clearly mentioned in his initial statement that the Petitioner had no other property except his wearing clothes worth Rs. In this particular case, the next friend of the minor Petitioner had clearly mentioned in his initial statement that the Petitioner had no other property except his wearing clothes worth Rs. 16/- in his evidence during the enquiry he also stated that the Petitioner was unable to pay the required Court fee. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, conclusion is irresistible that the Petitioner is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the Court-fees on the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, illegally exercised his jurisdiction in rejecting the prayer for leave to sue in forma pauper's. 6. The Civil Revision is allowed Leave to sue in forma pauperis be granted. As there is no appearance for the Government or for the other side, there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed