Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule (1)(nn) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order, dated 07.09.2001, made in O.P.No.13 of 1994 on the file of I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.) P.K. Misra, J. Heard the appellant who appeared in person. Counsel for the respondent is absent. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the trial court, rejecting the original petition filed by the appellant under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. The appellant had filed the suit for following relief: "(b) to declare that the petitioner/ plaintiff continues in service and consequentially to pass a decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to pay the salaries and other allied payments like perquisites etc., payable to the petitioner/plaintiff for March 1993 and continue to do so for the ensuing months till the date of his retirement on super-annuation along with interest as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court for the already accrued amount. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE to pass a decree directing the respondent/defendant company to pay damages to the tune of Rs.9.5 lakhs;" 3. On this, a sum of Rs.71,250/- was payable as court fee on the alternative relief claimed by the plaintiff. The appellant had asserted in his petition that he did not have sufficient means to pay court fee. In course of the proceeding, the appellant was examined as a witness and he had stated that he was not in a position to pay the court fee of Rs.71,250/-. The trial court rejected the said petition. It would be appropriate to extract the reasonings given by the trial court for rejecting the application. "The petitioner's wife is a bank employee and owns a house and for the petitioner who has drawn a monthly salary of Rs.10,000.00, will it not be possible to get a loan for Rs.75,000.00? As per the judgment in AIR 1989, Madras, Page 30, it is not necessary that a person should have liquid cash. But on the other hand, it should be looked into whether the petitioner has ways and means to raise the loan for the required sum. To add more, it is clearly established that ways and means does not include the money reserves. Though the petitioner does not have any cash in his hand but he has some movable properties. But on the other hand, it should be looked into whether the petitioner has ways and means to raise the loan for the required sum. To add more, it is clearly established that ways and means does not include the money reserves. Though the petitioner does not have any cash in his hand but he has some movable properties. By selling them he could manage the payment of a portion of the court fee. More over the petitioner was enjoyed a good status. His wife is also a bank employee and owns a house. So, by summing up of all the above, it is presumed the petitioner is in a position to arrange for the necessary money. So, it is unjust to declare the petitioner as an indigent person." 4. On going through the materials on record and after going through the order passed by the trial court, we are unable to accept the reasonings given by the trial court. The reasoning given by the trial court to the effect that the appellant's wife being a bank employee could have paid the court fee. We do not think, in law, such a conclusion can be arrived at. Even though for certain purpose the husband and wife may be treated as one unit, for the purpose of payment of court fee, it cannot be said that merely because the wife is employed somewhere, the husband would not be entitled to sue as an indigent person. 5. Similarly, the trial court has also observed that one year before the filing of the suit, the present appellant had taken a house on rent by paying monthly rent of Rs.2000/- and odd and similarly he has purchased a sofa by paying Rs.15,500/- and therefore he was a man of status. We do not think that the past capacity of the person was at all relevant. What all the trial court should have found out is whether at the time of filing the suit he had sufficient means to pay the court fee. Even the trial court does not say that movable assets were sufficient to pay the court fee. 6. Having regard to all these aspects, we feel that the trial court has rejected the petition on technical and irrelevant grounds, without proper application of mind. Even the trial court does not say that movable assets were sufficient to pay the court fee. 6. Having regard to all these aspects, we feel that the trial court has rejected the petition on technical and irrelevant grounds, without proper application of mind. The observation of the trial court that the appellant could have obtained loan from third parties is also irrelevant. Having gone through the materials on record, we find that the appellant did not have sufficient means to pay court fee and therefore his application to sue as indigent person should have been allowed by the trial court. 7. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court and allow the application under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2. We direct that the present appellant shall be permitted to sue as an indigent person.