Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioners are the respondents in OP 13 of 1984 of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. OP was filed under O.33 R.1 CPC for instituting the suit in forma pauperis. The Sub Judge allowed the petition holding that the respondents (petitioners in the OP) are not having any assets for being converted into liquid cash for paying the court fee of Rs. 59,980/-. The challenge against the order is that the Court has not waited for the Government Pleader's report regarding the means of the respondents and erred in allowing the application. 2. Should the court wait for the Government Pleader's report to decide whether the petition under 0.33 R.1 has to be allowed or not? Is it necessary for the court to compel the Government Pleader to cause the filing of the report with regard to the means of the respondents to pay the court fees for the plaint? Or is it not open to the Court to consider the evidence before it as adduced by the contesting parties to decide whether the respondents are having sufficient means to pay the court fee?. These are the moot points to be considered in the CRP. 3. 0.33 R.5 provides for the rejection of an application for permission to sue as an indigent person where the application is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by R.2 and 3 or where the applicant is not an indigent person. In a case where the applicant has, within two months next before the presentation of the application, disposed of any property fraudulently or in order to be able to apply for permission to sue as an indigent person or where his allegations do not show a cause of action or where he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject matter of the proposed suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject-matter or where the allegations made by him show that the suit would be barred by any law for the time being in force or where any other person has entered into an agreement with him to finance the litigation, the Court has to reject the application. Where the court does not reject the application on any of the grounds mentioned in R.5 it has to fix a date for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his pauperism and for hearing any evidence which may be adduced in disproof thereof. 0.33 R.6 mandates the Court to give at least 10 days' clear notice to the opposite party and the Government Pleader. 0.33 R.7 enables the Court to examine the witnesses, if any, produced by either party and to make a full record of their evidence. Examination of the witnesses shall be confined to the matters specified in clause (b), clause (c) and clause (e) of R.S. But the examination of the applicant or his agent may relate to any of the matters specified in R.5. Upon hearing the arguments of the parties the Court shall either allow or reject the applicant to sue as an indigent person. 4. The question is whether the parties and the Court are to wait for the adjudication of pauperism till Government Pleader's report is filed. R.6 only directs the Court to give notice to the Government Pleader. On receipt of the notice the Government Pleader is expected to supply necessary data before the Court to decide the point at issue. Merely because the Government Pleader did not file the report in time or has been taking adjournments to file the report regarding the means of the applicant the contesting parties and the Court are not expected to remain as mere passive spectators. There may be cases where urgent reliefs are sought in the suit to be filed by an indigent person. If the report is not forthcoming through the Government Pleader the Court is not bound to wait for it on the assumption that such report is the sine¬qua-non for deciding whether the applicant is an indigent person or not. Though Government Pleader's report would be highly desirable to ascertain the correct data with regard to the means of the applicant as it would be possible for the concerned authorities of the Government to gather facts and details with regard to the means of the applicant it does not at all mean that the Court or the parties at issue are to wait till the Government Pleader's report reaches the Court. The code does not say that the Government Pleader's report has to be awaited and that it should necessarily be considered and then only the application can be allowed or rejected. 5. Even in a case where an application under 0.33 R.1 has been admitted it would be open to the Government Pleader to seek for the dispaupering of the plaintiff. O.33 R.9 provides that the Court may, on the application of the defendant or of the Government Pleader, of which seven days' clear notice is writing has been given to the plaintiff, order him to be dispaupered if he is guilty of vexatious or improper conduct in the course of the suit or if it appears that he ought not to continue as an indigent person or if he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject matter. R.9 is sufficient indication to hold that the Court need not wait for the Government Pleader's report before making the decision on the application under 0.33 R.1. Even if the Government Pleader is not able to submit the report in time it is always possible for the State to take steps to dispauper the plaintiff if it is found later that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue as an indigent person, Thus the position is that the order allowing or rejecting the application to sue as an indigent person does not suffer from any infirmity merely because the Court had no occasion to consider the Government Pleader's report. 6. The court below has considered the evidence in its true perspective and has come to the finding that respondents' petition is maintainable under O.33 R.1 CPC. I find hardly any reason to interfere. The CRP is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.