CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the petitioner in P. Misc. No. 42 of 1991 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural district, Bangalore. This appeal had been filed to challenge the order dated 30-9-1993 in the said Misc. Petition, whereby the Civil Judge had dismissed her petition on the ground that the requisite Court fee of Rs. 10,000/- was not paid. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri N. S. Krishna and the learned Counsel for the respondents Miss. Gowhar Unnisa appearing along with Sri B. V. Sabarad. ( 3 ) THE facts are as here under : that the appellant-petitioner was allotted with 7 sites in Sy. No. 207 of Doddabommasandra village set out as Schedules 'b' and 'c' in the petition. It was valued at Rs. 2,00,000/ -. She had filed a Misc. Case 42 of 1991 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore rural district, Bangalore (in brief henceforth as Civil Judge) to sue the respondents as indigent person. The prayer therein was for declaration of her title and for temporary injunction. As per the valuation slip, the appellant-petitioner had to pay a Court fee of Rs. 10,000/ -. The appellant averred that she was an indigent person and was not having any other immovable property other than the suit schedule properties and that she was not having movables worth more than Rs. 100/- and as such, she was entitled to prosecute the relief in petition as an indigent person. ( 4 ) THE said petition was opposed by the respondents among other grounds. The main contention of the respondents before the learned civil Judge was that she was capable of paying the Court fee and as such, she was not entitled to for prosecution of the case as an indigent person. The learned Civil Judge in passing the impugned orders had observed that she being in possession of the subject sites could as well borrow money from others and thus pay the Court fee and therefore she was not entitled to for prosecuting her case as an indigent person. In addition to that, the learned Civil Judge had also found fault with the appellant because the petitioner did not appear in person and adduce her side of the evidence and instead examined her P. A. Holder. In addition to that, the learned Civil Judge had also found fault with the appellant because the petitioner did not appear in person and adduce her side of the evidence and instead examined her P. A. Holder. Having been aggrieved thereof, the appellant-petitioner had filed the instant appeal before this Court in resorting to the instant appeal. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Krishnan while taking me through the facts of the case and further urging the grounds in the appeal memorandum submitted that the Civil Judge had entered into an error to come to the above conclusion, for according to him the learned civil Judge had failed to appreciate the provisions in Rule 1 of Order 33 of Civil Procedure Code wherein it is made abundantly clear that for the purpose of computation of Court fee the subject-matter of the suit has to be excluded. In this context he has taken me through the provision under Rule 1 of Order 33 of Civil Procedure Code. To quote the same, it reads as hereunder:"order 33, Rule 1. Subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by an indigent person. Explanation I. 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) where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit. Explanation II. Any property which is acquired by a person after the presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent person, and before the decision of the application, shall be taken into account in considering the question whether or not the applicant is an indigent person. Explanation III. Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question whether he is an indigent person shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity". Explanation III. Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question whether he is an indigent person shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity". ( 6 ) THEREFORE Sri Krishnan prayed that it was totally erroneous on the part of the Civil Judge to reject the petition on the ground that she could as well raise the loan and pay the Court fee. Hence he prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge be set aside in allowing the appeal. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents miss Gowhar Unnisa while supporting the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge submitted that the Civil Judge had rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the petition, for according to her the appellant did not enter into the witness box to support her contention in the Misc. Petition, and instead she got her Power of Attorney examined before the court. Regarding the legal contention raised by Sri Krishnan, the other side had nothing to say. ( 8 ) FROM the provision of law under Rule 1 of Order 33 of CPC it also appears to me that for the purpose of computation of the Court fee, the subject-matter in the suit has to be excluded. It appears to me that the learned Civil Judge probably had not looked into the above provision of law and because of that circumstance he had observed in the impugned order that the appellant-petitioner would have raised loan by offering the petition properties. ^s security for the purpose of paying the Court fee. The learned Counsel for the respondents advanced an argument that the appellant-petitioner did not adduce any evidence by herself. I do not think such an argument can be accepted by this Court for the reason that the appellant-petitioner had executed a General Power of Attorney duly appointing one N. T. Lakshman Gowda with authority to file cases as set out in clause (5) of the Power of Attorney. I do not think such an argument can be accepted by this Court for the reason that the appellant-petitioner had executed a General Power of Attorney duly appointing one N. T. Lakshman Gowda with authority to file cases as set out in clause (5) of the Power of Attorney. If the appellant-peti- tioner got filed the petition through a duly constituted Power of Attorney and further got the said Power of Attorney examined for and on her behalf before the Court below, I do not think the Court can find fault with the appellant-petitioner; more so in view of the provision in Rule 4 of Order 33 to the effect that the applicant can as well examine herself or her agent on her behalf. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, I find merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner. In the result, I pass the following: (I) The impugned order dated 30-9-1993 passed by the Civil Judge rejecting the Misc. Petition No. 42 of 1991 is set aside. (II) The Misc. Petition filed by the appellant petitioner on the file of the Principal Civil Judge stands allowed. (III) The learned Civil Judge is directed to register the said petition as a suit and try the same in consonance with law. ( 10 ) THE appeal therefore succeeds and accordingly allowed. No cost. --- *** --- .