Pollock—On a previous occasion the non-applicants applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis and the reliefs that they claimed were the specific performance of a contract to sell immoveable property, possession of that property, and such other relief as the Court might think fit to grant. The leave was refused on the ground that they were not paupers and they did not proceed with that suit. Now they have put in a second application for leave in forma pauperis and the relief claimed is the refund of that part of the consideration which they paid on the contract. An objection was taken that the second application was barred under 0. 33, R. 15, but the lower Court has held that the application is not so barred. The question turns on the construction of O. 33, R. 15 which provides that an order refusing to allow the applicant to sue as a pauper shall be a bar to any subsequent application of the like nature by him in respect of the same right to sue. I respectfully agree with the decision in Ratnamala Dasi v. Kamakshya Nath, 1920 AIR(Cal) 632 that the words ''right to sue'' have substantially the same meaning as the words ''cause of action.'' In Parangodan Nair v. Perumtoduka I