Judgment :- D, Sreedevi, J. This C.M. Appeal is directed against the order in O.P. (Ind.) No. 8 of 1997 of the Sub Court, Kattappana. The plaintiff before the Court below is the appellant. 2. The appellant-plaintiff filed the above suit claiming that she is an indigent person and sought permission to sue as an indigent person without paying court-fee along with the plaint The learned Sub judge rejected the application for permission to sue as an indigent person, on the ground that she is not an indigent person. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. The application for permission to sue as an indigent person can be rejected only as per the provisions contained in 0.33 R.5 CPC. It reads: "5. Rejection of application: - The Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person (a) where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by rules 2 and 3, or (b) where the applicant is not an indigent person, or (c) where he 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. Provided that no application shall be rejected if , even after the value of the property disposed of by the applicant is taken into account, the applicant would be entitled to sue as an indigent person; or (d) where his allegations do not show a cause of action, or (e) 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 (f) where the allegations made by the applicant in the application show that the suit would be barred by any law for the time being in force; or (g) where any other person has entered into an agreement with him to finance the litigation". As per the provisions of R.5 aforesaid, the Court can reject an application if the presented in the manner prescribed by Rr. As per the provisions of R.5 aforesaid, the Court can reject an application if the presented in the manner prescribed by Rr. 2 and 3 or if the applicant is not an in diligent he 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 if the allegations do not show a cause of action or where he has entered into an agreement with reference to the subject matter of the proposed suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in the subject matter or that the suit is 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. In receiving the application, the Court shall give notice to the opposite party. If there is no reason to reject the application, after the enquiry contemplated under R. l(a), it shall issue notice to the opposite party, or the Government Pleader to adduce evidence. In this case, there is nothing to show that the Court has issued notice to the Government Pleader to file a report regarding the means of the petitioner to pay court fee. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Court in rejecting the application is not legal. 3. On a reading of the order, what we find is that the appellant's parents had properties and that the same have been disposed of for meeting the expenses of her sisters. According to the appellant, she is residing along with her brother, who is maintaining her. Before rejecting the application, the court has to come to a conclusion that the appellant is possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee, and that she has not alienated any property within two months next before the presentation of the application. To prove that the appellant is possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee or that she is able to raise money or that she is possessed of properties and that the income from those properties is sufficient to pay court-fee, no evidence has been let in. When it is alleged that the appellant is an indigent person, the burden is on the opposite party to establish that the appellant is not an indigent person. When it is alleged that the appellant is an indigent person, the burden is on the opposite party to establish that the appellant is not an indigent person. No such evidence has been let in. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application is illegal and as such it is liable to be set aside. In the'-result, this C.M. Appeal 'is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration after issuing notice to the Government Pleader. No costs.