Judgment :- 1. This revision petition filed by the original defendants has to be allowed on the short ground that the learned X Assistant Judge does not seem to have followed the procedure prescribed under O. 33, rules 6 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has filed the suit as an indigent person in which he has asked for partition by metes and bounds, of certain property and claimed mesne profits of Rs. 14,400. In paragraph 12 of the application asking for permission to sue as an indigent person the plaintiff has stated that he is a student and does not have any independent resources or income nor does he own any property, movable or immovable except the suit property. His case therefore is that he has no means to pay the court-fees. This has been denied by the defendants, according to whom, the plaintiff is carrying on transport agency business and has Bank accounts in the Bank of Baroda, Ambattur branch. The plaintiff and his mother, according to the defendants, were also doing business with Messrs. T.I. Cycles of India and Tube Products of India. The records do not disclose that the plaintiff was examined at all. But the learned Judge, going merely by the averments made in the application, held that the plaintiff was not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fees, because, according to the learned Judge, no tangible evidence has been produced on the side of the defendants that the plaintiff is owning any property or is carrying on any business. 2. In this revision petition, notice has been issued to the plaintiff and though he was served long back there is no appearance on his behalf. The infirmity in the order of the learned Judge is the non-compliance with the requirements of Rules 6 and 7 of O. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. O. 33, R. 6 provides that where the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in Rule 6, it shall fix a day for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce to prove that the application is not subject to any of the prohibitions in R. 5, and for hearing any evidence which may be adduced to the contrary. One of the prohibitions in R. 6 is that the Court cannot entertain an application when the applicant is not an indigent person. R. 6, therefore, specifically requires the applicant to adduce evidence to prove that be is an indigent person. If and when evidence is produced by the applicant, then the defendant has to be given opportunity to produce evidence, if any, to the contrary. R. 7 requires the Court to make a full record of the evidence of the witnesses. This requirement, clearly, has not be encomplied with. The order of the learned Judge, therefore, is required to be set aside. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed. The X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is directed to decide the application for permission to sue as an indigent person after complying with the procedure prescribed in O. 33, Rr. 6 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the original plaintiff, there will be no order as to costs.