The office has objected to the maintainability of the C.R.P. sought to be filed by the petitioner. I have heard the petitioner’s counsel. The facts are rather curious. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 57 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bapatla, under Order 33, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for leave to sue as a pauper. Her petition was rejected on 6th August, 1953 and she was directed to pay court-fee due on the plaint, and ten days’ time was fixed for it. She failed to pay the court-fee within the time fixed, and the pauper plaint was rejected on 20th August, 1953. She has now filed a C.R.P. against the order, dated 6th August, 1953, refusing leave to file the suit in forma pauperis, but, unfortunately, only after the later order, dated 20th August, 1953, rejecting the pauper plaint.

A Full Bench of this Court, to which I too was a party, has held in Satyanarayanacharyulu v. Ramalingam1 (the ruling relied on by the office) that where a plaint, on which additional court-fee is required to be paid, is rejected under Order 7, rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, for default of payment of the additional court-fee, within the time granted, the remedy of the plaintiff is to file an a