(Order of Reference to the Bench by Kailasam, J., dated 25th August, 1971):-

The question that arises in this petition is whether an appeal or a revision lies against an order of the lower Court rejecting the petition to sue as a pauper and when the date for payment of Court-fee had expired.

2. In this case, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 198 of 1967 under Order 33, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, to permit the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis. On the ground that on the date of the petition, the petitioner was possessed of some immovable property, which was fetching some rent (the facts are not admitted) the trial Court rejected the petition and declined to give permission to sue as a pauper and granted time for payment of Court-fee till 30th April, 1969. The Court-fee was not paid on 30th April, 1969 and the petition was rejected.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondents took up a preliminary objection that only an appeal lies and that the revision petition was incompetent. Order 43, rule 1 (nn) provides that an appeal shall lie from an order under rule 5 or rule 7 of Order 33, rejecting an application for permission to sue as a pauper or on the ground specified in clause (