JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order of the Trial Court dated 11.7.1990, whereby the application of the appellant/plaintiff to filesuitasan indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC has been rejected by the Trial Court. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff concealed the fact that he owns two houses in different villages. According to the Court, this concealment itself dis-entitles the plaintiff the permission to sue as an indigent person. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, in this appeal, argues that the trial Court totally overlooked the fact that for the purpose of Order 33 seeking permission to sue as an indigent person possession with him of properties which are subject matter of the suit is not at all relevant. Attention is invited to explanation 1 below order 33 Rule 1 CPC. From the plaint it is pointed out that the plaintiff had fully· described the lands in suit and a parental house in village Nayakheda. The argument is that the existence of a parental house at Nayakheda, which is subject matter of the suit, was never concealed from the Court. The other house at village Burman, according to the plaintiff, it is used as Akhda and there is a dispute about the same for its use by the Sadhus, who are using it as an Akhada. From the above fact, it is submitted that the plaintiff had become a Sanyasi and is not possessed of any property from which the requisite court-fees can be raised. The learned counsel, appearing for the defendants on the other side supported the order and submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the house at Burman is not such from which requisite amount of court fees cannot be arranged. It is also urged that the plaintiff owns lands and house properties at village Nayakheda, Dilheri and Burman. He is, therefore, a person with sufficient means to pay the court-fees and the Trial Court rightly rejected his application for permission to sue as an indigent person. I have carefully gone through the statement of the plaintiff recorded on his application for permission to sue as an indigent person. In the cross-examination, he admits that the land bearing Khasra No. 14/3 at village Dilheri has now come to be recorded in his name although he states that it belongs to his mother. I have carefully gone through the statement of the plaintiff recorded on his application for permission to sue as an indigent person. In the cross-examination, he admits that the land bearing Khasra No. 14/3 at village Dilheri has now come to be recorded in his name although he states that it belongs to his mother. He also admits that he has a house at village Bruman, but, he says that it is in dispute for use of Akhada between Sadhus. On the above admitted position from the statement of the applicant himself, it is difficult to hold that he is not possessed of properties from which court-fees can be raised. It is also true that in the schedule appended to his application under Order 33 he did not disclose all the lands and houses, which are recorded in his name. For all the above reasons, the Trial Court committed no error in rejecting his application to sue as an indigent person. The appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed, but, without any order as to costs.