JUDGMENT 1. P.O.P.No.185 of 2007 in un-numbered O.S.No. of 2007 has been filed by one M.Sivakumar, represented by his father, K.Munusamy, as Power of Attorney, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- as against his employer. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was working as an Executive Production Officer, in the Office of the second defendant, which is owned by the first defendant. It is his case that, during the course of employment, due to undue pressure of work exerted upon him, he suffered paralytic attack and he became immobile. 2.1. His father has given a sworn statement before the Civil Court stating that, (a) his son did not possess any property and (b) he did not also enter into any agreement with anybody to sell his property and as he has no means to pay the Court fees, he should be exempted from paying court fees. 3. This application has been dismissed, as against which the present Appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court, the piece of the evidence given by the father wherein he has categorically stated that his son has no means to pay the court fees, as he is neither in possession of any property nor in possession of money (cash) for the purpose of paying the court fees. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the father of the appellant is employed, and that, as he is earning money, he can very well contribute to the payment of court fees. The implication of this very defence itself is that the petitioner has no money to pay the court fees and therefore, it is suggested that father can help his son by providing money to pay the court fees. 5.1. It is within the discretion of the father, as to whether to give amount for the payment of the court fees to his son or not. The son cannot compel the father to pay any amount towards the payment of court fees, as the son is a major. Even he has no right to claim maintenance amount from his father, after attaining majority. Therefore, the possession of cash in the custody of father will make no difference as to the ability of the son to pay the court fees. 6. Even he has no right to claim maintenance amount from his father, after attaining majority. Therefore, the possession of cash in the custody of father will make no difference as to the ability of the son to pay the court fees. 6. Learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that normally, according to the procedures prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, notice ought to have been ordered to the Government for the purpose of enabling the Government to state whether the claimant is in possession of the property and if so, to what extent and whether the income from the property would be sufficient to the extent of paying the Court fees or not. 6.1. So far as this case is concerned, such a procedure has not been adopted, for the reasons best known. The name of the District Collector has been written in the petition and subsequently, it has been scored out. 7. Now, the question is, whether on account of the procedural violations, the matter has to be remitted back to the trial court or it should be considered on merits. 8. Normally, as contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, any court would have chosen to remand the matter for the purpose of issuing notice to Government. But this Court is of the view that, adopting such a procedure would further prolong the matter. Already the petition had been pending from the year 2007. It has taken six years for the Court to pronounce the order on the simple question as to whether the plaintiff should be granted exemption from the payment of court fees or not. 9. The next question is, whether adopting the procedure of remanding back would serve the purpose of this case. 9.1. Definitely not. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is in possession of the properties. Only if that is the case, then, the question of remanding would arise for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of property and any income from that property. It is a clear case of the plaintiff that he is not in possession of the property and therefore, no purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the trial court. 10. Moreover, the trial is yet to commence. It is a clear case of the plaintiff that he is not in possession of the property and therefore, no purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the trial court. 10. Moreover, the trial is yet to commence. If, during the pendency of the suit, if the Government come across any document or any material to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the property, liberty is given to Government to take steps to non-suit the plaintiff on that ground. 11. Learned counsel for the second respondent also pointed out the procedural violations done by the trial court. To explain the nature of violation, the decision reported in 2004-1-L.W. 335 (Minor Cibiraj & another v. C.Marimuthu & Others) is brought to the notice of the Court, where-under the procedure to be followed in terms of Order XXXIII CPC has been given in detail. 11.1. Once the Court has come to the conclusion that the Pauper Application is to be dismissed, then it is expected of the trial court to grant time to the plaintiff to pay the court fees. Only if the plaintiff did not pay the court fees within the time frame given by the Court, then only, it is for the trial court to dismiss the petition. Such a procedure has not been adopted by the trial court and straightaway, on the date of pronouncement of the order, dismissing the Pauper Application, the suit itself has been dismissed, for non-payment of Court fees. 11.2. No materials has been placed before the Court to show that the plaintiff is in possession of either the property or the income from the property or the income from any other source to the extent of enabling him to pay the Court fee of Rs.2,25,000.50. 12. Therefore, from the materials on record, it is evident that the petitioner / plaintiff is a pauper. Therefore, POP No.185 of 2007 stands allowed. The trial court is directed to register the suit and to proceed further. As already discussed, it is open to the Government to take necessary steps, if the Government come across any material to show that the plaintiff is in possession of sufficient property or sufficient income. 13. With the aforesaid observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.