JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant-company for declaration and permanent injunction and by way of amendment of the suit, it was converted into the suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,65,24,976/-. The Court fee to the tune of Rs. 8,25,065/- was payable. The plaintiff-appellant was unable to pay the Court fee and haft moved an application a/O. 33 R. 1 CPC for permission to file the suit as indigenous person. The plaintiff had attached a list of the properties which included a very nominal assets i.e. furniture etc. of an amount of Rs. 9,300/-, amount of the company in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Rs. 19,500/-, in Punjab National Bank Rs. 2,253.80. Apart from above the plaintiff had submitted that he is under debt of the Union Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/-. 2. Evidence was led and the application was dismissed on the ground that the company was possessing a plot of 2000 m. in Sitapura industrial area costing about Rs. 3-4 lacs and that the company had-also five machines lying in the company amounting to Rs. 17,50,000/-, out of which four machines were owned by the company. 3. However, the plaintiff had submitted that the allotment of the pot in question has since been cancelled and about four machines it was the case of the plaintiff that all the four machines were defective and because of that reason it could not be sold. 4. The trial Court had observed that evidence has been produced by the defendant in regard to allotment of plot but not of cancellation of plot and also that though the machines are defective, the same could not have been sold. 5. It is the case of the appellant that the plot was cancelled as far back as on 15.5.1995 and even the amount had been refunded. It is also submitted that all the machines are under hypothecation of the bank and the machines can only be sold if the amount to the bank is paid back. The bank is not allowing to sell the machines, of the company. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to accept the contention of the appellant in this regard. The bank is not allowing to sell the machines, of the company. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to accept the contention of the appellant in this regard. The appellant has placed on record a letter of cancellation of plot and also the letter issued by the bank to the effect that they would not allow to sell the machine of hypothecation until and unless the dues payable to the bank are cleared. 7. No other evidence was produced by the parties' to rebut the contention of the appellant that he was indigenous person except the existence of plot and machines. 8. From the above facts and evidence, it can be safely said that the appellant had no source to pay the required Court fee. The order of the trial Court is set aside. The application of the plaintiff-appellant is allowed and it is permitted to continue the suit as indigenous person.Application allowed. *******