Untwalia, J.

1. The opposite par-tics filed an application under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The sole defendant in the suit is the petitioner in this civil revision application. Opposite Party No. 1 is his wife and Opposite Parties 2 and 3 are their children. The suit is for maintenance. The petitioner resisted the application filed by the opposite parties, inter alia, on the ground that the Court at Biharsharif had no jurisdiction to try the suit and, consequently, the application, as the parties were married at Patna and not at Biharsharif. The petitioner wanted the learned Subordinate Judge, in whose Court the application was pending, to decide the point of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The Court below, following certain decisions, took the view that at the stage of deciding the pauperism of the plaintiffs-petitioners the issue as to jurisdiction could not be decided. The defendant has come up in revision.

2. The issue as to jurisdiction on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction or territorial jurisdiction is of the same kind. It means objection to the place of suing within the meaning of Sec.21 of the Code. At some stage or the other the issue has got to be tried out; but the question for consideration is whether the issue should be tried out before the plaint is regularly admitted in accordance with Order 33, Rule 8 of the Code or whether it should be tried thereafter.

3. There is a direct Bench decision of this Court in Gupteshwar Missir V/s. Chaturanand Missir, AIR 1950 Pat 309. B.P. Sinha, J., (as he then was), with whom Raj, J., agreed, on a consideration of various decisions, expressed the view at page 311, column 1--

"............ it was not open to the Court below to go into the question of valuation of the property, so as to determine the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, because that is a matter which arises only after the application has been granted and the application treated as a plaint, in answer to which the defendant has to raise his pleas in bar of the suit or of the jurisdiction of the Court".

The correctness of this decision was doubted by a Full Bench of this Court in Matuki Mistry V/s. Kamakhya Prasad. ATR 1958 Pat 264 (FB). But since the Full Bench was concerned with a different point, it did not finally consider whether the Bench decision in Gupteshwar Missirs case was correct or not, and naturally it did not overrule it. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain Saxena V/s. Bhim Sen, AIR 1966 All 84 (FB). where, after referring to the fact of the doubling of the correctness of the Bench decision of this Courl in Gupteshwar Missirs case in the Full Bench decision in Matuki Mislrys case, the Allahabad High Court did not agree with the Bench decision of this Courl and took a contrary view. In the Allahabad case, to resist the pauper application, an issue as to jurisdiction had been raised on the ground of valuation as also on the ground that the suit would be barred by the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court decided that such issues of jurisdiction could be decided and should be decided even at the stage of deciding the pauper application. Whether the objection as to jurisdiction is taken on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, as was in the case of Gupteshwar Missir or on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, as in the instant case, makes no difference. It is. therefore, clear that unless we feel persuaded to take the view that the Bench decision of this Court was wrong, we are not bound to follow the Allahabad decision; rather, the Bench decision is binding on us. If we would have taken the view that the decision was wrong, we would have been under the necessity of referring this case to a larger Bench. But since we respectfully agree with the Bench