Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. This petition has been filed by Harnam Singh against the order of the Courts below dismissing his application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sue as an indigent person. 2. The facts of the case are that Harnam Singh was the owner of the Car No. PNY-3692, which was insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1. The said car met with an accident on 10.2.1978. A claim was thereafter lodged by the petitioner with the Insurance Company. The claim was rejected. The Insurance Company also initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner. He was, however, acquitted of those charges on 8.6.1983. The petitioner thereafter filed criminal proceedings against the respondents, which too were dismissed. He thereafter filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,05,000/- which represented the damage caused to the car as also loss suffered by him. Alongwith the suit he filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC 3. Notice of the application was given to the Insurance Company, which filed its reply taking various pleas. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues;- "1. Whether the applicant is an indigent person and not in a position to pay the requisite court fee? 2. Whether the application is liable to be rejected on the grounds taken by the respondent? OPP. 3. Relief. 5. On a consideration of the evidence, the Court held that the application under Order 33(1) was not maintainable as the schedule of the property which was to be appended therewith had not been appended and secondly the suit itself was time barred and having held as above, dismissed the application vide order dated 30.9.1986. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ambala, who too dismissed the same vide his order dated 29.1.1987 but observed that the matter should be remitted to the trial Court for permitting the petitioner to pursue the suit under Order 33 Rule 15-A of the CPC. 6. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. 7. Today, at the very inception, a request for adjournment has been made on the ground that Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate who had filed the petition in the year 1987 had been superseded by Mr. J.C. Verma, Advocate. 6. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. 7. Today, at the very inception, a request for adjournment has been made on the ground that Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate who had filed the petition in the year 1987 had been superseded by Mr. J.C. Verma, Advocate. I am of the opinion that his request needs to be rejected as the matter has been pending in this Court since 1987 and the suit had been filed in the year 1984. To my mind, the orders of the trial Court are absolutely in accordance with law. Admittedly, the details of the property belonging to the petitioner had not been appended with the application under Order 33 Rule 5 CPC. It is the connected position that the petitioner is an ex-servicemen and had also purchased a car. His interest has also been protected by the appellate Court by referring the matter to the trial Court under Order 33 Rule 15-A of the CPC. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.