Petitioners are respondents 9, 13 and 15 to 19 in a petition filed by two brothers for permission to sue them in forma pauperis. They seek to revise an order passed by the District Munsif of Bezwada who allowed a review petition, I.A. No. 2522 of 1945, filed under Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, which resulted in the pauper petition after having been rejected on 23rd June, 1945, and ultimately dismissed on 21st July, 1945, on their failing to pay the requisite Court fee, being registered as a suit on payment of the Court fee ultimately on 12th February, 1946.

It is regrettable that neither learned advocate was instructed about the nature of the suit and in consequence they have no notion whatsoever as regards the contemplated plaint, the alignment of parties or the cause of action. On referring to the original plaint, I find that the plaintiffs are two brothers who recently attained majority. The suit they contemplate is one to set aside a sale deed in favour of the 8th defendant of the year 1939 executed by their brothers who are the first and second defendants and the husband of the seventh defendant whose children were defendants 3 to 6. The eighth defendant subsequently sold them to defendants 9, 13 and 15 to 19 who are the present petitioners. The other members of the family of the petitioners in the pauper petition made no appearance giving clear indication that this suit is one of a familiar type.

I come now to the main point for consideration, namely, the maintainability of this review petition, LA. No. 2522 of 1945 under Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The record shows that the pauper petition was substantially, though not explicitly, rejected on 23rd June, 1945, by a finding that the petitioners had ancestral property more than sufficient to cover the Court-fee. The petition was posted for payment of Court-fee on 7th July, 1945; time was extended till 14th July, 1945, and finally the petition was dismissed on 21st July, 1945. Then on 21st August, 1945, this review petition was filed which sought in substance merely to extend the time given for payment of Court-fee. The District Munsif held that half the Court-fee was payable on the review petition and directed that if the petitioners paid the proper Court-fee on the review petition and also the full Courtfee payable on the plaint within a week, the review petition would be allowed. This Court-fee having been paid on 9th February, 1946, the District Munsif allowed the review petition and the suit was registered on payment of these Courtfees.

The procedure adopted by the District Munsif is obviously irregular. Order 47, rule 1 is only applicable in cases of decrees or orders contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure by aggrieved persons who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by them at the time when the decree was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason seek a review. None of these conditions are satisfied in the present case: In the first place, Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, which regulates pauper suits makes no provision for a court extending time for payment of Court-fee when it rejects an application for permission to sue as a pauper under any of the clauses of Order 33, rule 5. As a matter of practice, and of grace, it has been however usual for courts to give a short time for payment of Court-fee when rejecting such application. The learned advocate for the respondents has argued on the basis that this review petition was maintainable as one to review the dismissal of the petition for failing to pay Court-fee in time. He has urged that on 21st July, 1945, the petitioners only had a portion of the Court-fee they were called upon to pay and in fact the argument he advances is merely one for extending indulgence which has already been unduly st