Short Note : 1. The petitioner filed application in the trial Court for permission to sue as a pauper under Order 35, R.1, CPC. Notices were issued to the opposite party and to the Government pleader. The Collector submitted a report that the petitioner was not in a position to pay the Court fees. The trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioners have suppressed some properties and have not disclosed the same. Held : From the evidence what has been found to be the property which has not been disclosed appears to be things of every day use like utensils, clothes and some ornaments of silver which are worn by women in their feet and a Kanta, which is worn by women in their nose. It is also clear that the value of these properties as appeared in evidence goes to show that it is insignificant. In fact the Court below ought to have considered the property not disclosed in the context of explanation to Order 33, R.1 of CPC. 2. "Explanation : A person is a 'pauper' when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law 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." 3. Wearing apparel apparently has to be excluded while considering the properties and it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the ornaments of insignificant value which have been considered by the Court below in the context of the social order are insignificant part of the wearing apparel of a married Woman. It was also contended that even accepting the total value of the article which has appeared in evidence it clearly indicates that this is very insignificant as compared to the amount of Court-fee which is to be paid for the present suit. 4. It is no doubt true that under Order 33, rule 5 CPC the Court below could reject the application if it is not in accordance with the provisions contained under rules 2 and 3. 4. It is no doubt true that under Order 33, rule 5 CPC the Court below could reject the application if it is not in accordance with the provisions contained under rules 2 and 3. Rule 2 provides for the contents of the application and it mentions a Schedule of properties with value but it could not be doubted that the omission to mention certain properties has to be considered in the context of the circumstances to come to a conclusion whether it was in inadvertent bona fide, mistake or was a suppression with intent to suppress the property and while considering this aspect of the matter the nature of articles and their value is of some significance. Apart from it there is yet another question which deserves consideration in this revision petition and that is about the report from the Collectorate submitted in response to a notice to the Government Pleader. Under rule 6 of Order 33 CPC a notice to the, Government pleader is necessary before the Court embarks upon an enquiry under Order 33, R.1 CPC apparently because the question of Court fee is a matter in which State is interested. It therefore cannot be disputed that the report from the Collectorate has to be considered before taking a decision on an application under Order 33, rule 1 CPC. Admittedly the report was received and the report is in favour of the petitioners; unfortunately the Court below has not at all looked into this report and in doing so the Court below has committed material irregularity in exercising the jurisdiction. Revision allowed. Case remanded for decision in the light as the above remarks.