Short Note : 1. Respondent No.1 Girwarsingh has filed a suit in forma pauperis claiming a sum of Rs. 5,000 from the defendant-petitioner. The application to sue in forma pauperis was opposed by the defendant and the report of the Collector was that the applicant was possessed of sufficient means to pay Court-fees but the learned trial Judge by his impugned order has allowed the application and hence the defendant has preferred this revision petition. 2. Held : The case of the plaintiff-non-applicant No.1 was that he was not possessed of sufficient means to pay Court-fees amounting to Rs. 500. In the schedule of his property annexed to the application, the plaintiff had disclosed that he had 1/3 out of 1/5 share in the property mentioned in item No.2 of that schedule. The plaintiff had valued that share at Rs. 100. In the witness box, however, the plaintiff admitted in the cross-examination that he had sold that share to one Harisingh for a sum of Rs. 3,000. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended before me that the plaintiff was obliged to sell his property to pay off his debt to the bank but there is no material on record to substantiate this contention. The trial Court did not consider the aforesaid evidence and allowed the application merely on the ground that the defendant did not adduce any evidence to prove that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue as a pauper. The trial Court did not take into consideration the report of the Collector in which it was mentioned that the plaintiff was possessed of the sufficient means to pay the Court-fees and the admission of the plaintiff regarding sale of property for Rs. 3,000. It is thus clear that in deciding the plaintiff's application to sue in forma pauperis, the trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. Revision allowed.