Phillips, J.

1. The question for decision is whether, when an application to sue in forma pauperis is rejected under Order 33, Rule 5(a), a second application is barred by the provisions of Rule 15 of that order ? The Calcutta High Court in Atul Chandra Sen v. Peary Mohan Mukerjee [1915] 20 C.W.N. 669 held that there is no distinction between orders of rejection passed under Rule 5 and orders of refusal passed under Rule 7 and this view has been adopted in Ali Afzal v. Purna Chandra A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 1039. There is also a case in Ranchod Morar v. Bezanji Edulji [1896] 20 Bom. 86, where a similar view appears to have prevailed.

2. On the contrary, we have the authority of the Lahore High Court in Bal Kuar v. Shib Das [1920] 1 Lah. 151 and of a Full Bench of the Burma Chief Court in Howa v. Sit Shein [1917] 42 I. C. 803 that a distinction should be made between these two classes of orders. They have held accordingly that an order passed summarily under Rule 5(a) is not a bar to a second application. The leading ease is the one in Atul Chandra Sen v. Peary Mohan Mukerjee [1915] 20 C. W. N. 669 which distinctly holds that there is no distinction between orders under Rule 5 and ord