JUDGMENT : KARAMAT HUSAIN, J. This was an application to revise; an order passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Allahabad granting an application to sue in forma pauperis and the court below was bound to reject it. At the hearing of this revision a preliminary objection is taken that inasmuch as the order is an interlocutory order, it cannot be revised. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Harsaran Singh v. Muhammad Raza, Weekly Notes, 1893, p. 218 and on Bhulneshri Dat v. Bidiadis, Civil Revision No. 24 of 1910, decided on the 24th of May, 1910. In the latter case STRAIGHT and OLDFIELD, JJ., following the rulings of this Court, held that they “could not interfere in revision with the Sub-ordinate Judge's order refusing the application of the petitioners to sue in forma pauperis.” The learned advocate for the applicant relies on Faiz Muhammad Khan v. Aziz-un-nissa, (1) Weekly Notes, 1893, p. 218 in which a single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that a revision of an order rejecting an application to sue in forma pauperis would be to this Court. This case was followed by BANERJI, J., in Musammat Changia v. Joti Prasad, Civil Revision No. 24 of 1910, decided on the 24th of May, 1910 in which an application for revision of an order of the District Judge rejecting an application in forma pauperis was allowed. The learned advocate for the applicant also relies on Ghulam Shabbir v. Dwarka Prasad, (1895) I.L.R., 18 All., 163 which lays down that the High Court could interfere in revision under section 622 of Act XIV of 1882, although it was possible that the matters complained of might be ground for a separate suit, and also on Debi Das v. Ejaz Husain(1905) I.L.R., 28 All., 72, which lays down that the revisional powers of the High Court will not invariably be confined to matters in respect of which no other remedy is open to the party aggrieved. Having regard to the course of decisions of this Court I am of opinion that the preliminary objection taken by the learned advocate must prevail. A distinction, however, is to be drawn between the cases in which an application in forma pauperis is rejected and cases in which it is granted. Having regard to the course of decisions of this Court I am of opinion that the preliminary objection taken by the learned advocate must prevail. A distinction, however, is to be drawn between the cases in which an application in forma pauperis is rejected and cases in which it is granted. When it is rejected the “case” of the applicant comes to an end and is to be governed by the rulings in Weekly Notes, 1893, page 218 and in Civil Revision No. 24 of 1910, decided on the 24th of May, 1910. But when the application is granted the “case” of the pauperis not in my opinion decided within the meaning of section 115 of the new Code of Civil Procedure. Following, therefore, the rulings in I.L.R., 4 All., p. 91 and in W.N., 1882, p. 69, I would give effect to the preliminary objection and dismiss the application. CHAMIER, J. I agree. Under the present Code of Civil Procedure it seems to be quite clear that the “case” must have’ been decided before the High Court can interfere in revision. I am not prepared to subscribe to the view that no proceeding can be an “case” unless it terminates in a decree. But giving the word “case” the widest meaning that was given to that word in section 622 of the Code of 1882, I am unable to hold that the order against which this application for revision is presented decided any “case.” It appears to me that there is a clear distinction between the case of an application for permission to sue or appeal in forma pauperis being dismissed or rejected and the case in which a similar application is allowed. In the former it may be said that the case had been decided, while in the latter the order appears to be merely interlocutory. BY THE COURT.—The application is rejected with costs.