The court has no jurisdiction to give time to the plaintiff to pay court-fee when once the matter had been finally decided by its order and concluded by the order of the High Court. The court cannot pass final orders on an application for review without issuing notices to the other side.

Ahmad, J.

1. This application in revision is by defendant 1 against an order dated 2-5-1951, passed in Title Suit No. 58 of 1948 which is still pending for disposal in the second Court of the Subordinate Judge at Monghyr.

2. The suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of land given in the Schedules attached to the plaint.

3. The suit was originally filed in forma pauperis and it was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 1948. This application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was, on hearing, rejected on 16-12-1948, and the Court passed the following order:

"From all these it can be safely inferred that the applicant has got sufficient means to pay the court-fee in the suit which is valued at Rs. 11000.00 only. In this view of my finding the Misc. case is rejected on contest with costs. Pleaders fee at Rs. 167- only."

It is evident from this order that the Court did nob give any time to the applicant for depositing the court-fee necessary in order that the application on its payment could have been converted into a plaint of a regularly constituted suit. Tha order sheet of the case shows that on 16-12-1948 three orders bearing Nos. 20, 21 and 22 were passed by the Court. These orders are as follows:

"Order No. 20 dated 16-12-1948-- "Order passed. Misc. case rejected on contest with cost as per separate order sheet."

Order No. 21 dated 16-12-1948--"Memo of cost:-

-Applicant to pay Rs. 59/10.00 as cost of the Misc. case to the O. P......."

Order No. 22 dated 19-12-1048--"T. S. No. 58/48--Misc. case having been rejected, Register the plaint as T. S. Office to check and report by 20-12-48."

4. On 20-12-1948 the Court passed the following order as it appears from the order-sheet:

"Head office report. Plaintiff to pay court-fee of Rs. 1020/15/- along with talbana and w.p. of summons etc. and remove the defect as pointed out by the office on the back of the plaint by 5-1-49."

This order indicates that the Court subsequently on 20-12-1948 decided to give time to the applicant in the miscellaneous case for the payment of the Court-fee. This, in my opinion, the Court had no jurisdiction to do. This point stands concluded by the authority of this Court laid down in the case of -- Lala Mistry V/s. Ganesh Mistry, AIR 1938 Pat 120 (A).

In that case Rowland J. observed: "This in my opinion is the correct view. Allsop J. went on to express the opinion that the power to permit the application to be converted into a plaint by payment of court fees which the court undoubtedly has during the pendency of the application as held by the Judicial Committee could be exercised, at the time of rejecting the application, that is to say, if in one single order the court declined leave to sue as a pauper and also gave time for riling of court-fees, this would be within the discretion allowed by Sec.149 but he agreed with the other Judges that once an order finally disposing of the application for leave to sue as a pauper had been passed it was no longer open to the court to give any further time so as to revive the proceedings already completely disposed of and to permit them to be resumed. I am inclined on a review of the Code and of the authorities to agree with the view expressed by Allsop, J."

It is, therefore, clear that the Court having once dismissed the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis on 16-12-1948 without giving any time to the applicant for the payment of the court-fee could not by a subsequent order give time to her for depositing necessary court-fee. This order of 20-12-1948 was in this view of the matter, in my opinion, without jurisdiction.

5. The court, however, persisted in its order passed on 20-12-1948. The Court fee, however, was not in fact paid according to this direction and on 5-1-1949 time was again extended for the payment of the Court fee till 8-1-1949. On 8-1-1949 the applicant in the miscellaneous case filed a petition for time in order to enable her to move the High