The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition in forma pauperis is maintainable under 0.44 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the application for leave to file a review petition in forma pauperis will be allowed only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason.

1. The petitioner filed two appeals before this Court in forma pauperis; and the appeals were dismissed by us. He has now filed a petition to review the said judgment; and has filed this miscellaneous petition along with the review petition for leave to file the review petition in forma pauperis. The question we have to consider is whether such a petition is maintainable.

2. Since no counsel appeared for the petitioner (the petitioner appearing in person), we requested Sri. V. Parameswara Menon to appear amicus curiae. We also issued notice to the Government Pleader, since there was no decision of our Court on the point. Sri. Parameswara Menon brought to our notice almost all the relevant decisions touching the question. We do not think we need refer to all of them; and we shall be content by referring to those which have a direct bearing on the question.

3. In Ma Nyein v. Yone P. D. Patel (AIR. 1930 Rangoon 280) a Division Bench of the Rangoon High Court had to consider a similar case. The Division Bench held that, since the Code of Civil Procedure provided separately for suits, appeals, applications in revision and applications for review and also expressly provided that in certain circumstances leave to litigate in forma pauperis might be given in the case of suits and appeals and since there was no provision similas for cases of revision and review, an application for leave to file a review petition in forma pauperis was incompetent. This judgment contains no elaborate discussion on the question, the sole reasoning being that, since separate provisions are made for suits, appeals, revisions and reviews and since separate provisions are also made for leave to file a suit and leave to file an appeal in forma pauperis, regarding revision and review, such applications are not in the contemplation of the legislature. This is certainly one way of looking at the question. It is now well established that an appeal is a continuation of the suit. In spite of that, separate provision has been made in 0.44 for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. In the light of this, even if the review petition is construed as a continuation of the appeal, still, in the 'absence of a specific provision for leave to, file a petition for review in forma pauperis, such an application for leave is not maintainable. This is the reasoning of the Rangoon High Court.

4. There is another decision of the Madras High Court by a Single Judge in In re U. Ananthakrishna Baliga (AIR. 1943 Mad. 177), where the question considered was whether the defendant in a suit might be allowed to prosecute his defence in forma pauperis. Abdur Rahman J. considered this question and observed that there was nothing in 0.33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which could help a defendant in asking for the indulgence granted to a person who wished to file a suit in forma pauperis except in a case where the defendant might be, for the purpose of the suit, regarded as a plaintiff. The learned judge referred to an unreported decision of the Madras High Court by Curgenven J. which beid that, in a case, where a person filed an appeal paying full court fee but later applied for leave to file a review petition in forma pauperis, the prayer could be granted. But Abdur Rahman J. distinguished this case and held that the defendant in a suit should not be allowed to prosecute his defence in forma pauperis unless it could be said that the defendant in the particular circumstances of the case was a plaintiff. We agree that the unreported decision of Curgenven J. is not an authority in a case like the one before Abdur Rahman J.

5. On the other hand, we have a few decisions, mainly of the Calcutta High Court and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In Serajgunj Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Bindhubashini Dassya (AIR. 1936 Cal. 752), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a petition for review of a judgment passed on appeal must be considered to be a continuation of the appeal itself