The main legal point established is that the application for permission to sue as an indigent person is a combination of application and plaint, and the court has jurisdiction to return the application for presentation before proper court on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction.

1. Appellant herein filed an application before the court below for permission to sue as an indigent person. Application was opposed by the second respondent, who contended that appellant has means to pay court fee and that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that court and therefore the court has no jurisdiction. The court below upheld the latter contention and rejected the application for "presentation before proper court", though it was satisfied that the appellant is an indigent person. This order is now challenged.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the court below contravened the scheme underlining the provisions of 0.33 of the CPC and that an application can be rejected only for reasons mentioned in R.S. Rule S does not contemplate rejection of an application on account of lack of jurisdiction of the court. Learned counsel further contended that consideration of the question of jurisdiction would arise only after the application is registered as a plaint. Counsel placed reliance on the decision in Nur Muhammad v. Maulvi Jamil Ahmad (52 IC 688), where it was observed:

"It is thus manifest that what was presented to the court was not a plaint but an application and it would reach the stage of a plaint when the application was granted, and it would then be deemed to be the plaint in the suit. As at that stage (i. e., before registration as plaint) there was no plaint before the court, the order must be deemed to be an order returning the application. For this there is no authority in 0.33

Such an order was passed without jurisdiction and should not have been passed."

3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent rebutted these contentions. According to him. R.5 of 0.33 CPC. is not exhaustive of the circumstances under which an application under 0.33 could be rejected. That application could be rejected on other grounds. Learned counsel also contended that by virtue of S.141 C.P.C. provisions of 0.7 are rendered applicable to an application under 0.33 and therefore rejection or return could be justified under R.10 of 0.7 CPC Learned counsel also placed reliance on a number of decisions.

4. 0.33 deals with suits by indigent persons, which expression is defined in explanation (1) to R.1. R.1 states that subject to the provisions of the Order any suit may be instituted by an indigent person. R.2 inter alia states that every application for permission shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints In suits, and that it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. R.5 states that the court shall reject an application in any one of the circumstances covered by clauses (a) to (g). If the application is not rejected under R.5, R.6 requires the court to fix a day for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his indigence and for hearing any evidence which may be adduced in ids-proof thereof. According to R.7, on such day the court shall examine the witnesses produced by either party and may examine the applicant or his agent, but the examination of the witnesses under sub-rule (1) shall be confined to matters specified in clauses (b), (c) and (e) of R.5 and hear the arguments on the question whether the applicant is or is not subject to any of the prohibition specified in Rule S. According to R.8, where the application is granted it shall be numbered and registered and shall be deemed the plaint in the suit, and the suit shall proceed in all other respects as a suit instituted in the ordinary manner, except that the plaintiff shall not be liable to pay any court fee or process fee.

5. Clauses (b), (c) and (e) of R.5, in regard to which evidence could be adduced under R.7, relate to the alleged indigency of the applicant and related matters. Clause (a) relates to frame of the application and the manner of presentation. Clause (d) relates to the allegations not showing a cause of action