Order:- (Order of Reference to the Bench by Kailasam, J., dated 25th August, 1971):- The question that arises in this petition is whether an appeal or a revision lies against an order of the lower Court rejecting the petition to sue as a pauper and when the date for payment of Court-fee had expired. 2. In this case, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 198 of 1967 under Order 33, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, to permit the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis. On the ground that on the date of the petition, the petitioner was possessed of some immovable property, which was fetching some rent (the facts are not admitted) the trial Court rejected the petition and declined to give permission to sue as a pauper and granted time for payment of Court-fee till 30th April, 1969. The Court-fee was not paid on 30th April, 1969 and the petition was rejected. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondents took up a preliminary objection that only an appeal lies and that the revision petition was incompetent. Order 43, rule 1 (nn) provides that an appeal shall lie from an order under rule 5 or rule 7 of Order 33, rejecting an application for permission to sue as a pauper or on the ground specified in clause (d) or clause (d-1) of rule 5 as aforesaid. Clause (d) of rule 5 of Order 33, provides that the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper where the allegations do not show a cause of action and Clause (d-1), provides that the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper where the suit appears to be barred by any law. These were not the two grounds on which the pauper petition was rejected and, therefore, Order 43,. rule 1 (nn), is not applicable. But the objection of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that while rejecting the pauper petition, time was granted till 30th April, 1969 and as the Court-fee was not paid before that date and the petition had been rejected, it must be deemed that the plaint was rejected and only an appeal lies against the rejection of the plaint. Order 33, is the chapter relating to suits filed by paupers. Order 33, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, specifies the contents of an application to sue as pauper. Order 33, is the chapter relating to suits filed by paupers. Order 33, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, specifies the contents of an application to sue as pauper. It provides that every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits. Order 33, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, prescribes the procedure at hearing of a pauper petition and rule 8, provides that where the application is granted, it should be numbered and registered, and shall be deemed the plaint in the suit. Reading rules 7 and 8, an application under rule 2, is numbered and registered and it shall be deemed to be a plaint when the application is granted. Till the application is granted, the same is not deemed to be a plaint. The question is, what is the position when an application is dismissed granting time for payment of Court-fee. Under rule 8, the application is not deemed to be a plaint and the only thing that is rejected is the application as the order to pay Court-fee is not complied with. In my view, it cannot be said that the plaint is rejected, for the numbering of the plaint and its rejection comes only after the application to sue as pauper is allowed or when the Court-fee is paid. 4. Reliance was placed by the respondents on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Salyanarayanacharlu v. Ramalingam1 . In that decision, the Full Bench held that where an order directing payment of additional Court-fee in a suit is not complied with and it is followed by an order rejecting the plaint, a revision against the latter order would not be maintainable and the proper remedy is only by way of an appeal against the decree. These observations were made in a suit filed for a declaration that the plaintiff was the hereditary archaka of a temple. The suit had been grossly undervalued and the Court directed that the deficit Court-fee should be paid within two days. It was not complied with and the plaint was rejected. This case is different in that there it was a plaint with deficit Court-fee which was rejected when the deficit Court-fee was not paid. The suit had been grossly undervalued and the Court directed that the deficit Court-fee should be paid within two days. It was not complied with and the plaint was rejected. This case is different in that there it was a plaint with deficit Court-fee which was rejected when the deficit Court-fee was not paid. In the case of pauper petition, the plaint does not come into existence until the application to sue in forma pauperis is granted or the Court-fee is paid and, therefore, there was no rejection of the plaint. But in the decision in Bommisetty Ramayamma, In re2, a single Judge of this Court took the view that when once a man is refused to be treated as a pauper, by an order of Court, he at once becomes a declared non-pauper and there could not be any distinction after such refusal between the would be pauper and an original non-pauper. For the reasons stated above, I regret I am unable to accept this view. As the matter is of frequent occurrence and as I am unable to share the view of the learned single Judge, the civil revision petition will Toe posted before a Bench for its view as to whether the civil revision petition is permissible on the facts of this case. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Veeraswami, C. J.-The matter has "been placed before us, as a question of procedure arises. The petitioner had applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis, which was not granted. The Court below allowed time for payment of Court-fee. But it was not paid. The petition is to revise the order of the Court below declining leave to sue in forma pauperis. An objection seems to have been taken on behalf of the respondents that only an appeal would lie. Kailasam, J., considered this and was of the view that only a revision would lie. He, however, felt that as Bommisetty Ramayamma, In re2, took a different view, the question may be settled by a Division Bench. 6. We are clearly of the view that the only remedy ,if at all, open to the petitioner, is by way of revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code. Refusal of leave to sue in forma pauperis is but an order not having the force of a decree. 6. We are clearly of the view that the only remedy ,if at all, open to the petitioner, is by way of revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code. Refusal of leave to sue in forma pauperis is but an order not having the force of a decree. Unless an appeal is specifically provided for from an order the only remedy is by way of revision. Appeal has been provided for only if an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was refused on the ground that the plaint disclosed no cause of action or that it was barred by limitation-Vide, Order 33, rule 5 (d) and (d-1), as well as rule 7 of the Code. Merely because while declining leave, the Court gave time, that would not have the effect of converting the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis into one of an order on a plaint, so as to consider it as a case of an order rejecting the plaint. A contrary view expressed in Bommisetty Ratnaaymma, In re2, as we think, is not correct. The preliminary objection is, therefore, rejected. 7. On the merits, we are inclined to think that the matter should go back to the Court below for fresh disposal of the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis. It is true, that on the date the Court below disposed of the application, the petitioner was possessed of some property. It appears that the property was subject to a mortgage on the basis of which a decree was obtained and it was brought to sale. The Court below went upon the basis that, so long as the petitioner happened to be in possession, she could not be regarded as a pauper. But it is stated that the property had been sold and the petitioner was deprived of possession of the property. That fact was not before the Court below. Although time for payment of Court-fee has expired, we consider that, in the interests of justice, the question whether the petitioner at that moment was a pauper or not should be approached on the merits. On that view of the matter, the revision is allowed and the matter is remitted for disposal of the application afresh in the light of the evidence, if any, to be adduced. No costs. S.J. ----------- Revision allowed.