ORDER : Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30-4-14 by which application under Order 33, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has been allowed and she has been permitted to sue as indigent person. 2. Facts of the case are as under. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, partition and possession against her brother, father, mother and sister who are petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4. Along with the plaint she filed an application under Order 33, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code that she is not having sufficient means to pay the Court fees of Rs. 1,50,000/-, therefore, she may be permitted to sue as indigent person. Plaintiff has valued the suit on the basis of market value of the property i.e. Rs. 80 lakhs. In the application under Order 33, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code she has stated that she is working as Aanganwadi worker and getting salary of Rs. 2500/- per month. She has to maintain two daughters. Her husband is working as driver and earning Rs. 2500/- per month. She has to pay rent and she has limited house hold articles worth of Rs. 1500/- and clothes worth Rs. 1000/-. 3. Notices were issued to the defendants on the said application and the present petitioners as defendant No. 2 and 5 filed detailed reply to the application. In the reply it is submitted that the petitioner has not approached with clean hands and suppressed most of the important facts. That the plaintiff herself has executed an agreement in favour of the defendant No. 2 and his wife who are her natural parents admitting that the suit house is inherited by her father and uncle by way of will executed by grand father Shivnarayan on 4-7-1988 and he has no right, title and interest in the said house. She has also admitted that at the time of marriage gold and silver ornaments along with domestic items were given to her. Even at the request of plaintiff her parents have already given her Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of four demand drafts of Rs. 49,000/- each along with cash of Rs. 4,000/- for fulfilling the residential needs of her family. She has also admitted that at the time of marriage gold and silver ornaments along with domestic items were given to her. Even at the request of plaintiff her parents have already given her Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of four demand drafts of Rs. 49,000/- each along with cash of Rs. 4,000/- for fulfilling the residential needs of her family. The said demand drafts have been deposited in the joint bank account of the plaintiff and her husband, therefore, plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the Court fees. 4. In support of the application, plaintiff examined herself by way of filing affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. She was cross examined by the defendants. In the cross examination she has admitted that from 1-4-2011 she is getting Rs. 4,000/- per month as honorarium and also got arrears of Rs. 13,500/-. In cross examination she has denied the receipt of four demand drafts of Rs. 49,000/- each. 5. In rebuttal petitioner examined herself and Deepak, Branch Manager of State Bank of India. The said Branch Manager has specifically stated that the plaintiff is having a joint saving account with her husband in his branch with Account No. 53012363344 and there is entry of deposit of four demand drafts and they were en-cashed also. Thereafter petitioner also filed written submissions in which it is stated that applicant and her husband has purchased a plot for sale consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/- for which they withdrew Rs. 2 lakhs from the bank account and later on they have sold the said plot on 15-2-2010 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,60,000/-. 6. Learned trial Court vide order dated 30-4-2014 has held that the monthly income of the plaintiff is Rs. 4,000/- per month but that is not sufficient to pay the Court fees. The deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs in the account of the plaintiff has also been found proved. The said amount was withdrawn by her husband and purchased the property and sold it later but it has not been established that he has given the amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the plaintiff. The income of the husband cannot be included in the property and income of the wife for the purpose of Court fees. The said amount was withdrawn by her husband and purchased the property and sold it later but it has not been established that he has given the amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the plaintiff. The income of the husband cannot be included in the property and income of the wife for the purpose of Court fees. It is further held that non-applicant/petitioner has failed to prove that two months prior to the filing of the application plaintiff has disposed of the property to avoid Court fees, therefore, the application was allowed vide order dated 30-4-2014 and the suit was directed to be registered as civil suit in the category-A. 7. Petitioner filed the present petition before this Court in which vide order dated 26-6-2014 notices were issued to the respondents and vide order dated 2-9-2014 the Court has directed that the proceedings may go on, however, the right of the petitioner to file written statement shall not be closed. Since the present petitioner did not file written statement, therefore, the civil suit has not proceeded further. 8. Shri Kochatta, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that learned trial Court has failed to consider that the plaintiff is having sufficient means of property to pay Court fees. She was given amount of Rs. 2 lakhs by the parents which she utilized for purchase of plot and later on sold it and received the amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-. She is in Government employment and getting salary of Rs. 4500/- per month. Her husband is also earning. She wants a share in the property worth Rs. 80 lakhs without payment of Court fees. She has not approached with cleans hands. She has conveniently denied all the suggestions given in cross-examination which later on found to be correct. Learned trial Court has not considered material on record and wrongly permitted the plaintiff to sue as indigent person. She wants a share in the property worth Rs. 80 lakhs without payment of Court fees. She has not approached with cleans hands. She has conveniently denied all the suggestions given in cross-examination which later on found to be correct. Learned trial Court has not considered material on record and wrongly permitted the plaintiff to sue as indigent person. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the decisions in the case of Mathai M. Paikeday v. C.K. Antony, reported in 2012 (1) MPWN 76 (S.C.); Devilal s/o Lalchand Vyas v. Smt. Narmadabai d/o Badrilal, reported in 1999 (2) M.P.L.J. 80 ; S. Saraswathi v. Executive Member, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bangalore, reported in AIR 2002 Karnataka 447; Doddananjappa v. Sub-Registrar, Hoskote, Bangalore, reported in AIR 2003 Karnataka 205 and Muhammad Abdullah v. Secy., of State, reported in AIR 1934 Lahore 681. 9. Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has argued in support of the impugned order. He submitted that learned Judge has rightly allowed the application under the provisions of Order 33, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the judgment in the case of Dwarkabai v. Ukharda Ganpat, reported in AIR 1954 Nagpur 252; Gita Bai v. Dhannu Bai, reported in 1995 (1) MPWN 151 and Manormabai v. Chandrakant, reported in 1995 (11) MPWN 199. He further submits that the issue of Court fees is always between the plaintiff and the State and the defendant has no right to raise objection, hence the present writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the defendants and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, partition and possession which she herself valued at Rs. 80 lakhs and according to which she is liable to pay maximum Court fees of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is working as Anganwadi worker and getting salary of Rs. 4000/- per month. It has also been now, prima facie, established that the plaintiff has received amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from her parents by way of four demand drafts. The Bank Manger in his statement has categorically stated that the said amount was credited in the account of the plaintiff and immediately the same was withdrawn. 4000/- per month. It has also been now, prima facie, established that the plaintiff has received amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from her parents by way of four demand drafts. The Bank Manger in his statement has categorically stated that the said amount was credited in the account of the plaintiff and immediately the same was withdrawn. In her application under Order 33, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code she has suppressed all these facts to avoid payment of Court fees. She has also not even filed copy of the passbook and the account statement. She has denied to the extent that she has no knowledge that her husband has withdrawn the amount. Plaintiff is not an illiterate lady. She is working in a Government Department, therefore, it is not expected from her to become ignorant about the transaction in the bank account. Petitioner has filed photocopy of the demand drafts which were in the name of plaintiff and these demand drafts were encahsed by the plaintiff, therefore, it was “Stree Dhan” of the plaintiff. She has permitted her husband to use the said amount before filing the suit. She has not given any explanation about the amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- received after the sale of the plot. Learned A.D.J. has allowed the application only on the ground that the transaction was not within two months from the date of filing the suit. Plaintiff filed an application for indigent person on 22-12-2010 and the plaintiffs husband purchased the property on 20-9-2010 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/- and during pendency of the said application the suit property was sold on 15-2-2011, therefore, during the pendency of this application there was sufficient money available with the plaintiff to pay the Court fees. Under Order 33, Rule 5 sub-rule (b) the Court has power to reject the application where the applicant is not an indigent person. Learned ADJ did not consider all these material available on record while allowing the application. 11. So far the locus of the petitioner to challenge the said order is concerned under Order 33, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code power has been given to the defendants to apply before the Court for withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff. Learned ADJ did not consider all these material available on record while allowing the application. 11. So far the locus of the petitioner to challenge the said order is concerned under Order 33, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code power has been given to the defendants to apply before the Court for withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff. Under sub-rule (7) either party has been given power to examine their witnesses and submit their arguments which includes defendants also, therefore, right has been given to the defendants to oppose the application for indigent person and to withdraw the permission granted. If such a right has been given the defendant has also a right to challenge the order granting permission to sue as indigent person. Since no appeal lies against the order allowing the application under Order 33, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, therefore, the writ petition is the only remedy available to the defendants. The Apex Court in the case of M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, reported in (1972) 2 SCC 427 has held as under:— 10. We venture to think that the High Court was laboring under a mistake when it said that the enquiry into the question whether the respondent was a pauper was exclusively a matter between him and the State Government and that the appellant was not interested in establishing that the respondent was not a pauper. Order 33, Rule 6 provides that if the Court does not reject the application under Rule 5, the Court shall fix a day of which at least 10 day's notice shall be given to the opposite party and the Government pleader for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of pauperism and for hearing any evidence in disproof thereof. Under Order 33, Rule 9, it is open to the Court on the application of the defendant to disappear the plaintiff on the grounds, specified therein, one of them being that his means are such that he ought not be continue to sue as a pauper. An immunity from a litigation unless the requisite Court fee is paid by the plaintiff is a valuable right for the defendant. And does it not follow as a corollary that the proceedings to establish that the applicant-plaintiff is a pauper, which will take away that immunity, is a proceeding in which the defendant is vitally interested? An immunity from a litigation unless the requisite Court fee is paid by the plaintiff is a valuable right for the defendant. And does it not follow as a corollary that the proceedings to establish that the applicant-plaintiff is a pauper, which will take away that immunity, is a proceeding in which the defendant is vitally interested? To what purpose does Order 33, Rule 6 confer the right on the opposite party to participate in the enquiry into the pauperism and adduce evidence to establish that the applicant is not a pauper unless the opposite party is interested in the question and entitled to avail himself of all the normal procedure to establish it? We can think of no reason why if the procedure for discovery is applicable to proceeding under Order 33, the appellant should not be entitled to avail himself of it. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30-4-2014 is hereby set aside. Trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 13. Writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.