Abdur Rahman, J.

1. Four appeals were filed in this Court in the ordinary form. They were heard ex parte and accepted by a Division Bench composed of Venkataramana Rao, J. and myself on the 20th November, 1941, after arguments had been addressed to us by Mr. Sitarama Rao on behalf of the appellant. The petitioner, who was one of the respondents and who was by our judgment also held liable for the debts, presented four petitions for review in forma pauperis after the retirement of Venkataramana Rao, J. The first question to decide is whether these petitions are legally competent and the petitioner can be allowed to prosecute them as a pauper.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends in the first instance that although his application was not in terms covered either by Orders 33 or 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure yet it is possible for this Court to permit him to make an application for review in the same way as a defendant was allowed by Wilson, J., in Doorgachurn Doss v. Nittokilly Dossee I.L.R. (1880) Cal. 819, to defend a suit in forma pauperis. His second contention is that if a Court has power to allow a suit initially filed with the necessary court-fee to be continu