Short Note : 1. The applicant had filed the suit along with an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis for specific performance of the contract and damages. The valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fees was Rs. 7,500 and the applicant was required to pay Court fees of Rs. 750. In the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis the applicant stated that he had no means to pay the aforesaid amount of the Court fees. The application was resisted by the non-applicant. The report of the Collector was however in favour of the applicant. The trial Court has refused to grant permission to the applicant to sue in forma pauperis on the grounds that the applicant in para No. 10 of the application only disclosed the property worth Rs. 350, but in evidence it was found that he possessed of some more property and that he was in a position to pay the requisite Court fee. 2. The non-applicant Arjunsingh has stated that 10 biswas of adan (irrigated land) which is owned by the applicant can fetch the price of Rs. 1,500. He has also stated that there is one more bada about 4 or 5 biswas in area with the applicant which can fetch the price of Rs. 1000. According to the non-applicant the applicant has also a share in 8 bighas of land along with his nephews which can fetch the price of Rs. 1,200 to Rs. 1,400. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record has come to a finding that the applicant suppressed certain property while making the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis and that he has got means to pay Court fee of Rs. 750. Held : The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of this Court in Latel Gir v. Thukal Gir (1961 JLJ SN, 352) in which it was held that under Order 33, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code it is to be seen that the applicant is in presently possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the prescribed Court-fee. However, this decision will not help the applicant for the simple reason that apart from the right of redemption in the properties sold to Karan Singh by conditional sale, the applicant is possessed of 10 biswas of irrigated land and certain bada on which the applicant can raise money to pay the Court fee. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied on another decision of this Court in Raghubar Dayal v. Central Government (1961 JLJ SN 586) in which it was held that in case the property alleged to be an asset was itself burdened with encumbrances or was the subject-matter of a decree, the pauper application was not liable to be rejected merely because the pauper failed to disclose its existence inadvertently on the assumption that it did not constitute an asset. Even this decision will not help the applicant. As already stated above 10 biswas of irrigated land disclosed by the applicant in the petition was not shown to have been burdened with any encumbrances. It is only in the evidence of the applicant stated that he had mortgaged it, but that fact has not been proved. The applicant could have disclosed in the application that he has got some saleable interest in the land which is given to Keshar Singh on conditional sale. He ought to have disclosed the land adjoining to his house also which could fetch some price or the other. 3. In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view, that the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record and examining the legal position rightly came to the finding that the applicant is not entitled to get the permission to sue in forma pauperis. The trial Court in doing so does not seem to have committed any jurisdictional error and as such the finding arrived at by the Court below cannot be disturbed in revision. 4. The trial Court, however, committed material irregularity in refusing to give the applicant reasonable time to make the payment of the Court fee. It is true that the conduct of the applicant in suppressing certain property prevailed upon the Court in not giving any time to the applicant to pay the Court fee. However, there is nothing to indicate that the applicant suppressed the property deliberately to avoid the Court fee. It is true that the conduct of the applicant in suppressing certain property prevailed upon the Court in not giving any time to the applicant to pay the Court fee. However, there is nothing to indicate that the applicant suppressed the property deliberately to avoid the Court fee. It may be that the applicant bona fide believed that it was not necessary for him to disclose the right of redemption in the agricultural land. The bada adjacent to the house of the applicant may have been left-out from being mentioned in the schedule under the impression that it was not very valuable. Thus, to my mind, the trial Court ought to have given reasonable time to the applicant to pay the requisite Court fee treating the plaint to be stamped with deficit Court fee. 5. For the above reasons this revision is partly allowed. The order of the Court below refusing the applicant to sue in forma pauperis is confirmed but the applicant is given 2 (two) months time from today to pay the requisite Court fee. AIR 1943 Mad. 11 and AIR 1965 Punj, 331referred to, 1961 JCJ SN 352 and 1961 JLJ SN 585 distinguished. Revision partly allowed.