JUDGMENT Lal Gopal Mukerji, Actg. C.J. and Rachhpal Singh, J. - This application must be allowed. It arises out of an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ballia dated 29th of March, 1932, by which he declared that the Plaintiff before him, who is the Applicant before us, was in a position to pay the Court-fee payable in the suit and called on her to pay a sum of Rs. 1,225/- as the Court-fee payable on the plaint. 2. It appears that the Plaintiff Razia Bibi with some others had brought a suit for recovery of her husband's property against certain persons. She obtained a decree from the Court of first instance on condition of payment of Rs. 56,000/- and odd. It was provided in the decree that certain accounts would be taken and if anything was found due to the Plaintiff in the suit, the sum of Rs. 56,000/- and odd would be reduced to the extent of that amount. The Defendants filed an appeal and the appeal was allowed in part with the result that the order as to accounts passed in favour of the Plaintiffs was set aside and a decree was made on condition of payment of the entire sum of Rs. 56,000/- and odd. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge has decided that as the property in suit was valued at Rs. 91,000/-, the Plaintiff was in a position to raise money and pay the Court-fee required. 4. The order is full of fallacies, When the Applicant was allowed to sue as a pauper she had a decree in her favour which was far more favourable to her than the decree passed by the High Court. Circumstances altered but not in favour of the Applicant but in favour of her opponents. The order allowing the Applicant to sue as a pauper therefore should not have been disturbed. 5. Further it appears that the Applicant's share in the property in the aforesaid litigation was only 1/32 of the entire property and this means that her share was worth less than Rs. 3,000/-. Her share of the debt, namely, Rs. 56,000/- would come to a little less than Rs. 2,000/-. In the circumstances it would be extremely difficult for the Applicant to raise the sum of Rs. 1,225/- required for the Court-fee. 6. In any view of the case the order was unjustified and uncalled for. 7. 3,000/-. Her share of the debt, namely, Rs. 56,000/- would come to a little less than Rs. 2,000/-. In the circumstances it would be extremely difficult for the Applicant to raise the sum of Rs. 1,225/- required for the Court-fee. 6. In any view of the case the order was unjustified and uncalled for. 7. It has been argued that no revision lay against that order but the point is concluded by a two judge decision of this Court in Sumatra Devi, Mt. Vs. Hazari Lal and Another where it was held that a revision did lie from an order refusing to allow a party to sue as a pauper. Of course, the necessary other conditions for the maintenance of a revision must be there. 8. Next it was argued that no case has yet been decided and therefore no revision is maintainable. In our opinion the result of the order of 29th March, 1932, is to put the Applicant in the same position in which she would have been if her application had been initially dismissed on the grounds on which the permission given to her to sue as a pauper has now been withdrawn. 9. As regard; material irregularity we have said enough to show that nothing has happened to improve the position of the Applicant to induce the judge to alter his previous order. 10. We allow the revision and set aside the order of 29th March, 1932, with costs throughout. 11. We have been told that the Applicant has by some compromise got enough property out of which she can pay the Court-fee now. If that is so, that is a matter which has happened since the order under revision was passed and we cannot take cognizance of that fact.