Short Note : 1. The applicant had filed a suit in forma pauperis. The suit was dismissed. The applicant filed an application for obtaining permission to file the appeal as an indigent person with an affidavit stating that the situation has not changed and after the filing of the suit he has acquired no property. The respondent did not dispute this fact, but contended that evidence during the trial indicated that the petitioner got some properties in partition which he has given over to his wife and on that ground it was contended that the matter deserves inquiry. Held: Rule 3 of Order 44 requires the applicant to make affidavit stating that he has not ceased to be an indigent person since the date of the decree appealed from; and if this affidavit is disputed by the respondent or the Government Pleader, then alone an inquiry is called for. Learned counsel for the respondents also conceded that in view of Rule 3 as it stands now it could not be disputed that applicant has not ceased to be an indigent person after the date of the decree appealed from. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion it is not necessary to direct an inquiry into the matter in view of the fact that the petitioner has submitted an affidavit in support of his application stating that he continues to be an indigent person and the situation has not changed after the decree passed by the Court below and this fact has not been challenged by the respondents or the Collector or Government Pleader. Application allowed.