Judgment :- Respondents 1 to 3 in Pauper O.P. No. 3 of 1994 on the file of the First Additional Sub Judge, Tiruchirappalle, are the petitioners in the above revision. 2. The first respondent herein has filed pauper O.P. No. 3 of 1994 seeking permission to file the suit in forma pauperis since he has no property of his own movable or immovable. He has also averred that he is under the care and protection of his maternal uncle. He is aged about 9 and he has not alienated any property represented by guardian to any third party within 2 months preceding to the filing of the suit, nor has he entered into any agreement with third parties with reference to the subject matter of the suit. He has not rendered himself disqualified to sue as indigent person. The same has been resisted by the first respondent in the said O.P. contending that there is no cause of action for filing the present suit and no case has been made out to file the suit in forma pauperis. 3. Before the Court below, one Palaniappan, maternal guardian of the minor petitioner/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and first defendant, namely, Kamu alias Kamalammal was examined as P.W.1. On behalf of the first respondent before the court below, 4 documents were marked as Exs. R. 1 to R. 4. Considering all the above reports, the Court below after holding that with regard to the merits of the case, it has to be decided only at the time of the disposal of the suit and in as much as there is no valid tenable objection to the counter with regard to indigency of the plaintiff granted permission to sue as indigent person. The said order has now been challenged in the present revision. 4. Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after narrating the entire facts, contended that the suit itself is not maintainable, since there is no cause of action. On the other hand, Mr. V. M. G. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that we are concerned with only the indigency of the plaintiff and in as much as the same has not been seriously disputed, it is not open to this court to interfere with the said factual finding. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5. V. M. G. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that we are concerned with only the indigency of the plaintiff and in as much as the same has not been seriously disputed, it is not open to this court to interfere with the said factual finding. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5. At the outset I agree with the objection raised by Mr. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, since we need not consider the cause of action or merits of the plaint. It is settled law that when application for permission to sue as in forma pauperis the Court has to consider the applicant's indigence only. Any other objection or merits of the case have to be considered only at the time of the trial and not at this stage. In this case, there is no dispute that the minor plaintiff is under the care and protection of his maternal uncle and he has no property of his own either movable or immovable. As a matter of fact, with regard to the indigency of the minor plaintiff, there is no opposition in the counter filed by the petitioners herein. Hence the court has arrived at the following conclusion namely. (Vernacular matter omitted) In the light of the above said factual findings and in view of the position of law as seen from Order 33 CPC I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is always open to them to raise those objections at the appropriate time. Hence the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P. No. 8841 of 1996 is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.