Judgment.-The question for consideration in these two petitions is whether an order passed by the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, under Order 44, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, rejecting two petitions to entertain pauper appeals, against the judgments and decrees in O.S.Nos. 37 and 40 of 1949 on the file of the Additional District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, can be interfered with and set aside in revision simply because the points urged by the learned counsel who appeared for this petitioner in the two Original Petitions are not set out and discussed, and the order simply runs as follows:

“I see no reason for thinking that the decision of the lower Court is contrary to law or is otherwise erroneous. Petition rejected.”

Mr. Vaidyanatha Aiyar, for the petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions, relied on the ruling in Chennamma, In re1. There, it was held by a Bench of this Court, consisting of Venkatasubba Rao and Madhavan Nair, JJ., that it was not enough if the order rejecting the petition to file the pauper appeal simply quoted the words of the proviso to Order 44, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and that an applicant should be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document