This is an application to revise an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli, in I.A.No. 11 of 1949, in O.S.No. 70 of 1948, a suit instituted in forma pauperis on the file of that Court. The defendant is the petitioner and the plaintiff, the respondent in this Civil Revision Petition. The respondent filed an application, O.P.No. 58 of 1947, under Order 33, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code in forma pauperis in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli claiming to recover possession of some landed property with mesne profits, and also claiming an enhanced maintenance for herself, besides a sum of Rs. 975 for expenses of religious observances and Rs. 300 the value of certain silver vessels belonging to her. The respondent is the brother’s widow of the petitioner. There were bequests in favour of both the parties under a will of the father-in-law of the respondent. During the course of the enquiry into the pauperism of the respondent, she was put in possession of the landed property claimed by her, and thereafter the suit was registered as O.S.No. 41 of 1948, after contest regarding the pauperism of the respondent. Issue No. 5 framed in the suit was, “Whether the suit was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli”. This issue was taken up as a preliminary issue, and the Court held that the value of the suit was below Rs. 3,000 and therefore returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of the District Munsif of Tirunelveli. There was an appeal by the respondent to the District Court, Tirunelveli, in C.M.A.No. 22 of 1948, but the District Court confirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge.

Thereafter the respondent’s advocate who had originally appeared in O.S. No. 41 of 1948, re-presented the plaint which had been returned by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, after amending it by the inclusion of additional claims and prayers for additional reliefs which resulted in the valuation of the suit being fixed at the sum of Rs. 6,285. The plaint, as amended and enlarged, was represented to the Sub-Court itself. The learned Subordinate Judge made an endorsement on the plaint dated 10th August, 1948, to the effect, “file at party’s risk”. The re-presented plaint was numbered as O.S.No. 70 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The petitioner filed a written statement on 5th October, 1948, wherein she pleaded, inter alia, that the suit had not been properly instituted. On 6th January, 1949, the respondent filed I.A.No. 11 of 1949, purporting to be under Order 33, rules 1 and 8 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that the Court should accord permission to her to institute the suit O.S.No. 70 of 1948 in forma pauperis. This application was ordered by the learned Subordinate Judge and the permission sought for was granted.

The only question that was argued in I.A.No. 11 of 1949 in the Court below was, whether the plaint, which was numbered as, O.S.No. 70 of 1948, should have been presented by the respondent in person, or whether the advocate, who had already appeared for her in O.S.No. 41 of 1948, was competent to re-present the plaint, which was eventually numbered as O.S.No. 70 of 1948. Order 33, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, requires that every application for permission to sue as a pauper should contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits. Order 33, rule 3, requires that the application shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person unless he is exempted from appearance in Court. These provisions are mandatory. The plaint, which was presented to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of a Tirunelveli, and which was numbered as O.S.No. 70 of 1948, contained many additions to, and alterations of, the plaint as originally filed in that Court, which was returned to be presented to the Court of the District Munsif. There was a claim for additional maintenance and for the recovery of the value