1. This application in revision by the plaintiffs arises out of an order of the court below, refusing their prayer to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that they were guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts intended to perpetrate fraud upon the court.

2. The relevant facts are these: The petitioners filed an application under order XXXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, to sue the opposite pasty for recovery of a sum above Rs. 8,00,000/-, an amount which must be said to be quite substantial. In the schedule of the properties belonging to them only two items were mentioned, namely, (1) Wearing apparels (old) valued at Rs. 200/- and (2) old cooking vessels etc., valued at Rupees 300/-. In the rejoinder petition filed by the opposite party, it was disclosed that the petitioners had received compensation in different land acquisition cases in the years 1969 and 1970, more than Rupees 64,000/- and that out of the said money received by them, they have purchased extensive first class paddy growing lands. It was further disclosed that apart from the acquisitions, they have sufficient ancestral lands of high value. Petitioner No. 3 who examined himself in support of the petitioners' case, however, stated that none of the petitioners had acquired any land, and that lands that they had were already acquired and the money which the petitioners got as compensation under the various land acquisition proceedings was spent otherwise and not for purchasing lands as alleged by the opposite party. In course of the evidence, however, the opposite party produced various documents from that, which have been discussed in sufficient detail by the court below, it is apparent that during the period 1968 to 1971, petitioner No. 1 along with his father purchased extensive lands under 5 registered documents jointly, for a value of rupees about 11,000/-. Similarly, petitioner No. 5, Khetu Mehton purchased lands worth Rs. 2,700/-. Lands worth about Rs. 34,000/- were further acquired during the year 1965 in the name of the father of petitioner No. 1. The court below has further discussed the evidence to show that father of the petitioner No. 1 had acquired lands worth about Rupees 50,000/-. The learned Subordinate Judge also recorded a finding that during the years 1970 to 1972, the petitioners had more than Rs. 60,000/- by way of compensation. On all these materials, the learned Subordinate Judge took a view that the petitioners were bound to disclose all these properties in the schedule of the plaint and by omitting to do so were guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts.

3. In this Court learned Counsel for the petitioners however, contended that the court below was bound to record a clear finding as to the nature and extent of the petitioners' interest in the properties and as to whether that was sufficient to enable them to raise the necessary amount for payment of the Court-fee. With respect to the cash amount said to have been possessed by the petitioners, learned Counsel contended that it was open to the petitioners to spend every paisa of the same within a period of two months, next before the presentation of the application and, therefore, in absence of a further finding that the petitioners still possessed the amount no inference could be drawn against them under Rule 5 of Order XXXIII of the Code.

4. So far the cash money is concerned, there may be some force in the contention, nevertheless, I do not propose to give any concluded decision on this question, as in my opinion, this application must fail on the ground of concealment of the landed properties referred to above itself. Rule 2 of Order XXXIII of the Code impresses a duty upon an applicant when he sues in forma pauperis, to disclose in the schedule of the moveable or immovable property belonging to him with the estimated value thereof to enable the Court to examine the correctness of the applicant's claims. A bench decision of this Court in the case of Durga Prasad v. Srinivasa Sureka, (AIR 1930 Pat 368) has held that omission to set out whole assets with utmost good faith will make the application liable to rejection at the earliest stage if it reveals in course of hearing that the applicant has not stated with the utmost good faith the whole of his assets and does not set forth the assets with the utmost good faith, the application is to be rejected ab initio.

5. Learned Counsel, however, placed reliance upon another Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramdas Sahu v. Ram Chandra Sahu, (AIR 1957 Pat 562) and contended that in any event the petitioners should be allowed an opportunity to amend the application by setting forth all the properties. It is difficult to accept this contention as the prayer, if granted, would impair the course of justice and amount to a gross abuse of the processes of the Court. The contention does not find support in the least either on the basis of the authority cited by the learned Counsel. In this case rather as a proposition it has been clearly laid down that all applications for leave to sue in forma pauperis should set forth with the utmost good faith the whole of the assets of the applicant. The learned Judges, however, allowed an opportunity to the applicant of that case to amend the application on the ground that because the petitioner who had attained the majority was found to have no control or possession on any of the family properties. He was not even fully aware of all the family properties. I do not think, therefore, that this decision can be cited as an authority for the proposition that if and applicant deliberately conceals from the court any material particulars of his properties which he is bound to do under the scheme of Order XXXIII of the Code, he should be granted an opportunity when his concealment is detected to disclose these properties and then to lead evidence that it was not sufficient to raise the required amount of Court-fee. Reading the scheme of Order XXXIII it does not appear to be the intention. The rule of judicial amity appearing from various decisions seems to be that such a person must suffer and his application for leave to sue in forma pauperis, rejected.

6. There is equally no merit in this contention of the learned Counsel of the petitioners that the Court should have recorded a clear finding as to the nature and extent of the interest of the petitioners in the properties in question, for the simple reason that the properties stand in the joint names of petitioner No. 1 and his father, as well as in the name of the 5th petitioner. The petitioners, therefore, have an apparent interest in the properties. In the circumstances, it was necessary for them to disclose all those properties and indicate the extent of their interest of share in the same and that their corresponding values prima facie show that they were sufficient for raising the amount of Court-fee in question. The courts below, therefore, has taken a very correct view in this case.

7. Last leg of the argument of Mr. Sinha, which was advanced after the judgment was dictated in court was that the trial Court had committed an error of record in paragraph 9 of the order where, while considering the various documents, which were filed on behalf of the petitioners to show that all the properties acquired by them had already been sold, the Court instead of appreciating those documents and recording a finding in that aspect of the matter has rather made an observation against them that those documents show that the petitioners had been dealing with the properties and that they were persons of affluent circumstances. I permitted learned Counsel for the parties to work out the position of the lands, which might still be left with the petitioners, after the disposals under the eleven sale deeds mentioned above. The position that obtains after that verification is that 3.20 Acres of land purchased on 4-8-1972 (Ext. 1) for Rupees 20,000/- in which the petitioner No. 1 has half share and 2.20 Acres of lands, purchased on 20-4-1965 for Rs. 7,500/- (Ext. C), in which also the petitioner No. 1 has shares as this property was purchased along with four other persons. These lands were still left with and available to petitioner No. 1 over which he had title. Learned Counsel, however, contended that these properties need not have been mentioned in the schedule at all as they were not sufficient to raise the requisite amount of Court-fee to be paid on the plaint. He accordingly contended that the matter should be remanded to the court below for recording a clear finding on this aspect of the matter.

8. In order to resolve the controversial questions and shorten the matter as already said above. I permitted the learned Counsel to argue the matter to satisfy this Court in view of the so-called error of record committed by the court below and on examining the material facts and the circumstances of this case; and in view of the proposition indicated in various authorities, some of which have been cited earlier, in my view, the petitioners have been guilty of concealing or suppressing these properties from the knowledge of the Court. In view of the categorical attitude and stand taken by the petitioners, that they possessed no other properties, except the two items mentioned in the schedule, they cannot be heard to be contended in this court that the court below has failed in its duty after dismissing their application on the ground of concealment of the properties and to record a further finding as to whether those properties are sufficient or not for the purpose of paying the Court-fee in question. As discussed above, it is manifest that the intention of the parties was to suppress the properties and not to omit them for the reasons given by the learned Counsel in course of his ingenious argument in this Court. That apart, even if the petitioners might have thought in their wisdom that the properties were insufficient for raising the requisite amount of Court fee I do not think that they could have decided themselves the correctness of their stand.

9. In this view also, it was their bounden duty to inform the Court by a proper disclosure of the existence of these properties and then to prove by proper materials that in spite of these properties available to them, could be declared as pauperis. As already indicated above the scheme of Order XXXIII enjoins upon an applicant to come to the Court with clean hands and honestly disclosing his all assets on which consideration the Court may grant him leave to sue in forma pauperis.

10. I do not find any merit in this application and, accordingly, dismiss the same with cost. Hearing fee Rs. 64/- only.

11. Application dismissed.