JUDGMENT N. Mithal, J. - This is an appeal against the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the plaintiffs application for permission to sue as an indigent person. 2. The suit was filed for partition and for some other reliefs including a relief of injunction in respect of 3bigha 16 biswa of land situate in village Ibrahimpur. The allegation made in the plaint was that the plaintiff was not possessed of any means to pay the Court Fee amounting to Rs. 1795/- as he has articles of daily use worth Rs. 700/- only which was insufficient to pay the court fee. 3. During the proceedings for declaration of plaintiff as an indigent person, evidence was introduced that the plaintiff was possessed of 3 bigha 16 biswa land in village Ibrahimpur and also owned a shop as a co-owner with his brother. The plaintiff admitted these facts but it was alleged that these items could not be considered for purposes of deciding the question of indigency. From a perusal of the copy of the plaint which has been shown to us it will be apparent that the property in Schedule Ka consists of two plots Nos. 406 and 182 measuring 3 bigha 16 biswa situate in village Ibrahimpur. Similarly the property in Schedule Ja is a shop in which the plaintiff has claimed one-half share by partition. This obviously refers to the shop which is alleged to be jointly owned with his brother. The court below has recorded a finding that these two properties were sufficient to enable the plaintiff to pay the court fee payable in this Suit. 4. In appeal, Sri H. S. Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn our attention to sub-clause (a) of Explanation-I to Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. The relevant position of the provision may be extracted below: "Suits may be instituted informa pauperis. - Subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by an indigent person. Explanation. 4. In appeal, Sri H. S. Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn our attention to sub-clause (a) of Explanation-I to Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. The relevant position of the provision may be extracted below: "Suits may be instituted informa pauperis. - Subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by an indigent person. Explanation. -A person is an indigent person, - (a) If he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject - matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or (b) ........................" A perusal of the above provision will, therefore, show that a persons is entitled to sue as an indigent person if he was not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the court fee leviable on the plaint in the suit. While computing the means, the property which is the subject matter of the suit has to be excluded, apart from those items of property which are exempt from attachment in execution of the decree i.e. those items covered by Section 60 C.P.C. Subject matter of the suit has not been defined any where. Learned Standing Counsel Sri G.L. Tripathi, however, vehemently urged that subject matter can not include this property inasmuch as only the relief for injunction has been prayed in that respect. His submission was that if this interpretation is given then it will give a handle to every litigant to include his property in the Schedule of the plaint and merely claim a false relief of injunction in respect thereof, so as to exclude it from being considered as an asset available to the plaintiff for paying the Court fee. The argument of Sri Tripathi, though attractive, can not stand scrutiny because the rule is very clear and it excludes any property which is subject matter of the suit. It may be for the legislature to look into this aspect of the matter but so far as the Courts are concerned they have to interpret the law as it is on the statute book. It may be for the legislature to look into this aspect of the matter but so far as the Courts are concerned they have to interpret the law as it is on the statute book. In our view, any property which is subject matter of the suit, whether the relief is for partition or possession or even a mere injunction, has to be excluded while determining the assets available with the plaintiff' to enable him to pay the court fee. In view of the above, we can not agree with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge. The property i.e. shop and agricultural land ought to have been excluded from consideration while deciding the question of indigency of the plaintiff. 5. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The plaintiff-appellant is held to be an indigent person and entitled to prosecute the suit without paying the court fee subject to such order as may be passed by the trial court while disposing of the suit. In the circumstances of the case, however/there will be no order as to costs.