Judgment.- This is an application to revise an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli, in I.A.No. 11 of 1949, in O.S.No. 70 of 1948, a suit instituted in forma pauperis on the file of that Court. The defendant is the petitioner and the plaintiff, the respondent in this Civil Revision Petition. The respondent filed an application, O.P.No. 58 of 1947, under Order 33, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code in forma pauperis in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli claiming to recover possession of some landed property with mesne profits, and also claiming an enhanced maintenance for herself, besides a sum of Rs. 975 for expenses of religious observances and Rs. 300 the value of certain silver vessels belonging to her. The respondent is the brother’s widow of the petitioner. There were bequests in favour of both the parties under a will of the father-in-law of the respondent. During the course of the enquiry into the pauperism of the respondent, she was put in possession of the landed property claimed by her, and thereafter the suit was registered as O.S.No. 41 of 1948, after contest regarding the pauperism of the respondent. Issue No. 5 framed in the suit was, “Whether the suit was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli”. This issue was taken up as a preliminary issue, and the Court held that the value of the suit was below Rs. 3,000 and therefore returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of the District Munsif of Tirunelveli. There was an appeal by the respondent to the District Court, Tirunelveli, in C.M.A.No. 22 of 1948, but the District Court confirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge. Thereafter the respondent’s advocate who had originally appeared in O.S. No. 41 of 1948, re-presented the plaint which had been returned by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, after amending it by the inclusion of additional claims and prayers for additional reliefs which resulted in the valuation of the suit being fixed at the sum of Rs. 6,285. The plaint, as amended and enlarged, was represented to the Sub-Court itself. The learned Subordinate Judge made an endorsement on the plaint dated 10th August, 1948, to the effect, “file at party’s risk”. The re-presented plaint was numbered as O.S.No. 70 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. 6,285. The plaint, as amended and enlarged, was represented to the Sub-Court itself. The learned Subordinate Judge made an endorsement on the plaint dated 10th August, 1948, to the effect, “file at party’s risk”. The re-presented plaint was numbered as O.S.No. 70 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The petitioner filed a written statement on 5th October, 1948, wherein she pleaded, inter alia, that the suit had not been properly instituted. On 6th January, 1949, the respondent filed I.A.No. 11 of 1949, purporting to be under Order 33, rules 1 and 8 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that the Court should accord permission to her to institute the suit O.S.No. 70 of 1948 in forma pauperis. This application was ordered by the learned Subordinate Judge and the permission sought for was granted. The only question that was argued in I.A.No. 11 of 1949 in the Court below was, whether the plaint, which was numbered as, O.S.No. 70 of 1948, should have been presented by the respondent in person, or whether the advocate, who had already appeared for her in O.S.No. 41 of 1948, was competent to re-present the plaint, which was eventually numbered as O.S.No. 70 of 1948. Order 33, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, requires that every application for permission to sue as a pauper should contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits. Order 33, rule 3, requires that the application shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person unless he is exempted from appearance in Court. These provisions are mandatory. The plaint, which was presented to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of a Tirunelveli, and which was numbered as O.S.No. 70 of 1948, contained many additions to, and alterations of, the plaint as originally filed in that Court, which was returned to be presented to the Court of the District Munsif. There was a claim for additional maintenance and for the recovery of the value of jewels deposited with the father of the petitioner. The value of the reliefs sought in the amended plaint was nearly twice the value of the claim as originally laid. There was a claim for additional maintenance and for the recovery of the value of jewels deposited with the father of the petitioner. The value of the reliefs sought in the amended plaint was nearly twice the value of the claim as originally laid. The contention on behalf of the respondent is that she was entitled after the return of the plaint, to make such alterations and amendments in the plaint as she thought fit, to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge’s Court and re-present the plaint in that Court without the necessity of a personal presentation in accordance with Order 33, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. This is an untenable contention. The plaint as originally presented had been returned by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, for presentation to the District Munsif’s Court, as the suit was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the latter Court, and had to be filed there under section 15, Civil Procedure Code. After the plaint was so returned, the suit ceased to be pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The plaint, as subsequently amended after the return included other reliefs not originally claimed but whose value brought the suit within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge. This was in substance a fresh plaint, though the old plaint had been amended in many respects and presented to the same Court which had previously returned the plaint as unamended. I am unable to accept the contention of the respondent that the same old suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, which was numbered as O.S. No. 41 of 1948, was again given a fresh number, O.S.No.70 of 1948, and therefore there was no need for any fresh presentation of the plaint by the respondent, as required by Order 33, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. It cannot be maintained that the additional reliefs sought in the amended plaint must be deemed to have been sought when the plaint was originally filed and that the amendments introduced by the respondent herself without any order or direction of the Court relate back to the date of the filing of the plaint in the first instance. It cannot be maintained that the additional reliefs sought in the amended plaint must be deemed to have been sought when the plaint was originally filed and that the amendments introduced by the respondent herself without any order or direction of the Court relate back to the date of the filing of the plaint in the first instance. By professing to re-present the old plaint with new claims and reliefs added suo motu so as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court the respondent cannot claim that it is a continuation of the old suit O.S.No. 41 of 1948. That suit had come to an end when the plaint was returned under Order 7, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, by the Subordinate Judge and that order was upheld on appeal. The same plaint could not therefore again be re-presented to the Court of the Subordinate Judge. In fact the plaint as re-presented was substantially different both with reference to the reliefs sought and the pecuniary values of those reliefs. I therefore proceed on the basis that the plaint as amended was a new plaint and should have been presented to the Court of the Subordinate Judge by the plaintiff herself in person in conformity with the provisions of the Order 33, rule 3, of Civil Procedure Code. The learned Subordinate Judge instead of insisting upon compliance with the provisions of this rule numbered the amended plaint as O.S.No. 70 of 1948. When the defendant filed a written statement objecting to the procedure adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge and raising a plea that the suit had not been validly instituted the plaintiff, here respondent, filed I.A.No. 11 of 1949 through her advocate asking for leave to sue in forma pauperis, treating the plaint in O.S.No. 70 of 1948, already on the file of the Court as the petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The question is whether this was a sufficient compliance with the law. The amended plaint which was re-presented to the Sub-Court and registered as a suit O.S.No. 70 of 1948 could not thereafter be taken back by the plaintiff so long as the suit was pending. The question is whether this was a sufficient compliance with the law. The amended plaint which was re-presented to the Sub-Court and registered as a suit O.S.No. 70 of 1948 could not thereafter be taken back by the plaintiff so long as the suit was pending. Even assuming that it can be formally handed over to the plaintiff and taken back along with I.A.No. 11 of 1949 I consider it was a needless formality having regard to the decisions of this Court in Subbarao v. Venkatanarasimham1, Bava Saheb Miyan v. Abdul Ghani Sahib1 and Neeli Kandi v. Kunhayissa2. If the plaintiff had presented in person in I.A.No. II of 1949 for leave to sue in forma pauperis and the plaint in respect of which leave was sought was already on the file of the Court, she could be considered as having presented the plaint in person on the date when I.A.No. II of 1949 was filed by her in person in Court. Unfortunately, she did not present I.A.No. 11 of 1949 in person though the verified petition was signed by her and she declared the truth of its contents. In these circumstances, it is not possible to uphold the order of the Court below. I therefore set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed but in the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs either here or in the Court below. K.S. ----- Petition allowed.