We deal first with the point on which the learned Judge dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, that the petition was dismissed rightly by the Subordinate Judge, because it offended against Order 33, Rule 5 (a), of the Code of Civil Procedure. The schedule to the petition was (it is not disputed) defective, because it did not include one item of property and the petition was dismissed on account of this defect. In interpreting Rules 5 and 7 we attach importance firstly to the use of the word framed in Rule 5 (a), regarding it as appropriate to secure the inclusion in the petition of the various requisites specified in Rule 2, and not the correctness of the particular statements of fact involved in them. An d next the construction adopted by the learned Judge would in our opinion work oppression in a manner, which has not been justified by the suggestion for the respondent, that the purpose of the provision for dismissal of defective petitions is punitive. For this alleged punitive character is not supported by anything in the order or by authority, and it cannot be contended that the total failure of the petition would be a proper or necessary penalty for the omission (it might be inadvertent) of an item which would not necessarily have affected the decision. We therefore hold that the Subordinate Judge failed to deal with the question of the appellants pauperism owing to a fundamental mistake of law and that the learned Judges decision is therefore unsustainable.

Taking this view, we consider next the other ground, on which the Subordinate Judges decision is based, and which the learned judge of this Court of course did not find it necessary to consider, that the petition was liable to rejection with reference to Rule 5(d). The suit was one for accounts and for money due in connection with an arrangement between the parties for the joint enjoyment of certain property and the appropriation of its profits. The Subordinate Judge held that the appellant had no cause of action, because after reference to the documents embodying that arrangment, he found that they reserved no right to any money to the appellant. In this he was clearly wrong. Vide Exhibit III (2). He moreover overlooked the claim to accounts, provided for in Exhibit III (5). These provisions in Exhibit III are, as they stand, unambiguous, and no attempt has been made for the respondents to explain them otherwise. In the circumstances, we cannot hold that the Subordinate Judge ever applied his mind to them judicially. The failure to do so, when, (as here) it has involved substantial prejudice to the appellant, justifies our interference in revision, apart from the other reason urged by the appellant, with which we need not deal that the Subordinate Judge was not entitled to refer to Exhibits II and III at all.

The two grounds stated by the Subordinate Judge, as justifying his order failing, it must be set aside, the Letters Patent Appeal being allowed. The case must be remanded for readmission and disposal according to law with reference to the other prohibitions contained in Order 33, Rule

5. The Subordinate Judge will also be at liberty to consider the points raised by the respondents affidavits as to the appellants present position, which have been filed in this court. Costs will be costs in the case.

Appeal allowed.