JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Petitioner has applied for grant of Letters of Administration of the Will dated 5-4-1962 left behind by his father and after a Bench of this Court held that the duty payable in the matter must be paid before the application for grant of Letters of Administration is heard the Court below was moved to allow the Petitioner to proceed as an indigent litigant. The Trial Judge has rejected the application by saying: From a perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Court in the civil revision, it is seen that the Petitioner did not plead his indigence as a ground for exempting him from payment of the duty money. On the other hand the Petitioner specifically pleaded that he should be given a chance to pay the duty money chargeable on the Will. That on 20-6-1979, the Petitioner had filed a time petition praying that one month's time may be given to him to arrange and pay the duty money and the said petition was allowed and time was granted to him till 17-7-1979 for depositing the duty money. The said misc. case No. 2 of 1976 was filed on 9-2-1976 and although all along he was contending that he is not liable to pay the duty money, till 12-7-1979, he did not plead his indigence as a ground for exempting him from payment of duty money. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Rules 4, 5 and 6 of Order 33, Code of Civil Procedure, this petition cannot be rejected at this stage. Considering the circumstances under which the petition is filed I find that the same is without bona fides. As Misc. Case No. 2 of 1976 cannot be said to be a suit instituted by the Petitioner, it is very much doubtful whether at all the provisions of Order 33, CPC can be invoked by the Petitioner for exempting him from payment of duty money. In any event in view of the stand taken by the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Court in the Civil Revision, at this stage he is estopped from pleading his indigence as a ground for exemption of payment of duty money. In any event in view of the stand taken by the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Court in the Civil Revision, at this stage he is estopped from pleading his indigence as a ground for exemption of payment of duty money. That apart, in view of the directions given by the Hon'ble Court in the Civil Revision, I think, this Court can only extend time to pay the duty money on sufficient grounds being shown and in no event can entertain a petition for exemption from the payment of the duty money as filed by the Petitioner in the present Misc. case.... 2. The learned District Judge seems to be wholly wrong. The subject-matter of the Civil Revision was as to the stage at which the duty money has to be collected-is it prior to the grant order as a condition precedent to the hearing of the application or after the decision that probate or letters of administration is to be granted. While disposing of such an application, this Court came to hold that the duty money had to be collected prior to the hearing and extended the time for payment of the duty. Whether Petitioner was an indigent persons or not was not within the ambit of consideration. The learned District Judge has, therefore, clearly gone wrong in holding that the direction by this Court fixing a time for payment of the duty, took away his jurisdiction to consider whether Petitioner was an indigent litigant. 3. An application for grant of probate or letters of administration has to be filed before a Civil Court. No separate procedure has been laid down in the Indian Succession Act for dealing with such an application. Therefore, the CPC which applies to all civil proceedings unless any provision be made in a special statute providing a different procedure, would apply. The observations made by this Court in the case of Sakuntala Dasi v. Kusum Kumari Sarkar AIR 1971 Ori 103 , clearly indicate that in matters of procedure, the CPC applies unless there is anything to the contrary in the Act. That was a case under the Succession Act. There is a direct decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Palani Gramani and Another Vs. That was a case under the Succession Act. There is a direct decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Palani Gramani and Another Vs. Manickammal and Another where it has been held that an application by a Petitioner for grant of a probate or letters of administration is clearly a proceeding under the CPC and provision made under Order 33, Code of Civil Procedure, would be applicable. No authority to the contrary has been cited at the hearing. In view of this position, the learned District Judge clearly went wrong in expressing doubt about the applicability of Order 33 of the CPC to the matter. 4. There again does not seem to be want of bona fides of the Petitioner. Initially he was contending that the duty was not payable at that stage. When his stand was rejected and duty became payable immediately, he applied for exemption under the provisions of Order 33. Merely because an application had not been made at the first instance, there was no justification for the learned District Judge to come to the conclusion that Petitioner's application lacked bona fides. 5. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed and the order of the District Judge is vacated. Petitioner be declared to be an indigent persons, as there is no finding that he is possessed of assets which would defeat his application, I make no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed