S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This application in revision is directed against the order dated July 16, 1974, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur holding that the review petition of the petitioner cannot be heard without payment of court-fee.

2. Plaintiff is petitioner and defendant is non-petitioner. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and arrears of salary in the court of Munsif District Jodhpur in forma pauperis The Munsif held an inquiry and permitted her to prosecute the suit in forma pauperis. The suit was decreed with costs after trial. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the non-petitioner lodged an appeal before the District Judge, Jodhpur which was transferred for disposal to the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. He, by his judgment dated March 14, 1974, accepted the appeal and reversed the decree, passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. The petitioner preferred a review petition under O. XLVII, R. 1, CPC. before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, praying therein that the judgment passed in appeal on March 14, 1974 may be set aside and the appeal be heard and decided afresh.

3. The petition for review was filed on March 29, 1974. It was mentioned in the review petition that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the court fees of Rs. 117/- and that she was allowed to prosecute the suit in forma pauperis. It was, therefore, prayed that this petition for review in forma pauperis may be decided in accordance with law. On May 16, 1974, reply was submitted on behalf of the non-petitioner which contained a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the review petition without the payment of court fee and without submitting an application, as provided under O. XXXIII, r. 1 CPC. On May 28, 1974, an application under O. XXXIII, R. 9 and Sec. 151 CPC was moved on behalf of the non-petitioner. It was prayed in that application that the plaintiff petitioner may be dispaupered. This application was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge on May 28, 1974. At the time of hearing of the review petition on merits, a preliminary objection was raised from the side of non-petitioner that as O. XLIV, r. 2 CPC was not applicable to the petition for review, it is not maintainable in the absence of requisite court fee. Certain other points were also raised, which have been mentioned in the order-sheet dated May 28, 1974. On May 31, 1974, an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff stating that permission to prosecute the review petition in forma pauperis may be granted. On July 1974, an application was filed on behalf of the non-petitioner mentioning there-in that as separate application for permission to prosecute the review petition, in forma pauperis was not filed along with the review petition, the application so submitted hits the provisions, relating to limitation, and, therefore, the objection raised by the non-petitioner be decided first. After hearing arguments, the learned Additional District Judge held that the review petition filed by the petitioner was a continuation of the appeal and not of the suit, and that as no application accompanying the review petition was filed separately for permission to prosecute the review petition as a pauper, there was non-compliance with the provisions of O. XLIV, R. 1 CPC. In this view of the matter, he declined to hear the review petition of the petitioner in forma pauperis and granted 15 days time to the petitioner to make good the deficiency of the court-fee, if she so liked.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated May 16, 1974, the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Sec. 115 C.P.C.

5. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr I G. Maloo, contended that the suit was allowed to be prosecuted in forma pauperis, that since the petition for review is a continuation of the suit, it is maintainable without payment of court fee, that O. XLIV, R.1 CPC is only applicable to the pauper appeals and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document