( 1 ) THIS Rule raises the question whether when a court before which an application to file an appeal in forma pauperis under Order 44, Rule 1, Civil P. C. is made, does not reject the application in view of the proviso to that rule but issues notice on the opposite party to show cause why the application to prosecute the appeal as pauper should not be allowed, it is open to the court, at a later stage, to reject the application on the ground that under the proviso it is bound to reject it. It appears in the present case that a defendant against whom a suit had been decreed by a Munsif of Serampore filed an application to prosecute the appeal in forma pauperis on the ground that she was unable to pay the fee required for the memorandum of appeal. The learned Judge examined the applicant and thereafter directed issue of notice. The notice that was issued called upon the opposite party to produce evidence, if they so desired, to show' that the applicant was not a pauper and stated further that on the date mentioned the applicant would also produce evidence to show that she was a pauper. Later on, an order was passed by the learned Judge apparently after hearing