P. A. KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by defendant-1 against the order dated 2-2-1985 passed by the Add. Civil Judge, Bangalore District. Bangalore, in O. S. 106/80, dismissing I. A. X. filed by defendant-1 under O. 33, R. 1. on the second occasion. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit O. S. 106/80 to recover about 30 lakhs and odd from the defendants. The defendant-1 filed I. A. VII making a counter claim of about a crore and 26 lakhs and he sought permission to make the counter claim as an indigent person. The said I. A. VII came to be dismissed for default on 1-10-1983. I. A. X was filed under O. 9, R. 9 to set aside the ex parte order of dismissing I. A. VII for default. He also filed second application I. A. X. under O. 33 R. 1 again to permit him to make a counter claim as an indigent person. The trial Court dismissed I. A. IX and it also dismissed I. A. X. on the ground that an order passed dismissing I. A. IX filed under O. 9, R. 9 would bar the subsequent petition. M. F. A. 1528/85 was filed against the dismissal of I. A. IX filed under O. 9, R. 9. But later on it was withdrawn. The present appeal is directed against the order dismissing I. A. X. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel Sri Rangavithalachar, drew my attention to Srikanta Subbaraje Urs v. S. P. Sundaraja Char, (1972) 1 Mys LJ 111. It is held in the said case as :"where a petition for permission to sue as a pauper is dismissed for default of appearance, Or. 33, R. 15, CPC does not bar a second petition, as the dismissal does not amount to a refusal under R. 7 (3) of Or. 33. The provisions of Or. 33, R. 15 are attracted only when there is an order refusing to allow an application to sue as a pauper and such an order is one which must have been made under R. 7 (3 ). An order under R. 7 (3) is made only when the evidence is recorded and the Court hears argument. "the learned Counsel Sri Aswatharam submitted that the said decision of this Court did not consider O. 9. R. 9 and its effect on the subsequent application. An order under R. 7 (3) is made only when the evidence is recorded and the Court hears argument. "the learned Counsel Sri Aswatharam submitted that the said decision of this Court did not consider O. 9. R. 9 and its effect on the subsequent application. The learned Counsel Sri Aswatharam relied on T. S. Subbaraya Devai v. R. Sundaresa Devai, AIR 1933 Mad 5, Krishna Rao v. Janaki Ammal, AIR 1939 Mad 681 and Ghulam Mohd. Mughlu v. Ali Mohd. , AIR 1972 Jandk 5, in support of his contentions that if O. 9, R. 9 is read along with S. 141, CPC, O. 9, R. 9 would apply even to the dismissal of a petition filed under O. 33 for default. ( 4 ) ORDER 9, Rule 9, C. P. C. reads as :"decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit :- (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. (2) No order should be made under this rule unless notice can be application has been served on the opposite party. "therefore, it becomes clear that O. 9, R. 9 deals with a decree against the plaintiff for default. When the dismissal of a suit results in a decree, R. 9 says that a fresh suit is barred. O. 9, R. 8 speaks as :"where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted. shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder. "therefore, if Rr. shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder. "therefore, if Rr. 8 and 9 of O. 9 are read together, they cover a case of a decree which would follow in the case of a suit dismissed for default. ( 5 ) SECTION 141 of the C. P. C. reads as :"miscellaneous proceedings :- The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction. "section 141 makes a provision for the procedure prescribed for suits to be followed in all other proceedings of civil jurisdiction. If any other provision is to be found in the C. P. C. or in any other law, S. 141 will not be applicable at all. Section 141 has been brought on the statute book only to cover cases for which no other provision has been made in regard to the other miscellaneous proceedings. ( 6 ) ORDER 33 relates to suits by indigent persons O. 33, R. 1 speaks about the institution of suits in forma pauperis. Rule 1 (a) speaks about inquiry into the means of an indigent person. Rule 2 speaks as to what should be the contents of such application. Rule 3 speaks about presentation of such an application. Rule 4 speaks about the examination of the applicant immediately upon filing of an application seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. Rule 1 (a) speaks about inquiry into the means of an indigent person. Rule 2 speaks as to what should be the contents of such application. Rule 3 speaks about presentation of such an application. Rule 4 speaks about the examination of the applicant immediately upon filing of an application seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. O. 33, R. 5 which in my view is a very material rule, reads as :"rejection of application :- The Court shall reject an application permission to sue as an indigent person - (a) where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3, or (b) where the applicant is not an indigent person, or (c) where he has, within two months next before the presentation of the application, disposed of any property fraudulently or in order to be able to apply for permission to sue as an indigent person : provided that no application shall be rejected if, even after the value of the property disposed of by the applicant is taken into account, the applicant would be entitled to sue as an indigent person : or (d) where his allegations do not show a cause of action, or (e) where he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject-matter, or (f) where the allegations made by the applicant in the application show that the suit would be barred by any law for the time being in force, or (g) where any other person has entered into an agreement with him to finance the litigation. "therefore, R. 5 makes it absolutely clear that an application to sue as an indigent person can be rejected by the Court. An application to sue as an indigent person can be dismissed only under R. 5 at the initial stage. ( 7 ) RULE 6 speaks about notice to be issued to the other side. Rule 7 prescribes the procedure for hearing. Rule 7 (1) prescribes that a Court shall examine the witnesses, if any, produced by either party, and may examine the applicant or his agent, and shall make a full record of their evidence. ( 7 ) RULE 6 speaks about notice to be issued to the other side. Rule 7 prescribes the procedure for hearing. Rule 7 (1) prescribes that a Court shall examine the witnesses, if any, produced by either party, and may examine the applicant or his agent, and shall make a full record of their evidence. Rule 7 (1a) reads as :"the examination of the witnesses under sub-rule (1) shall be confined to the matters specified in clause (b), clause (c) and clause (e) of Rule 5 but the examination of the applicant or his agent may relate to any of the matters specified in Rule 5. " rule 7 (2) reads as : "the Court shall also hear any argument which the parties may desire to offer on the question whether, on the face of true application and of the evidence if any taken by the Court under Rule 6 or under this rule, the applicant is or is not subject to any of the prohibitions specified in Rule 5. "rule 7 (3) reads that the Court shall then either allow or refuse to allow the applicant to sue as an indigent person. Rule 8 lays down the procedure if application is admitted. Rule 9 speaks about withdrawal of permission to sue as an indigent person. Rule 9a enables the Court to assign a pleader. Rule 10 speaks about costs. Order 33 is self contained and makes provisions regulating the procedure to be followed in the case of an application filed to sue as an indigent person. As already stated by me, S. 141 makes a provision that the provisions of the C. P. C. as far as possible may be followed in the case of the miscellaneous applications. But when a specific provision is found, one cannot have recourse to Section 141, CPC and make O. 9, R. 9 applicable to such cases. Therefore, the provisions contained in O. 9, in my opinion, do not apply to petitions filed under O. 33. ( 8 ) RULE 12 enables the State Government to apply for payment of Court-fees. But when a specific provision is found, one cannot have recourse to Section 141, CPC and make O. 9, R. 9 applicable to such cases. Therefore, the provisions contained in O. 9, in my opinion, do not apply to petitions filed under O. 33. ( 8 ) RULE 12 enables the State Government to apply for payment of Court-fees. Rule 15 is another important provision which reads as :-"refusal to allow applicant to sue as indigent person to bar subsequent application of like nature :- An order refusing to allow the applicant to sue as an indigent person shall be a bar to any subsequent application of the like nature by him in respect of the same right to sue; but the applicant shall be at liberty to institute a suit in the ordinary manner in respect of such right, provided that the plaint shall be rejected if he does not pay, either at the time of the institution of the suit or within such time thereafter as the Court may allow, the costs if any incurred by the State Government and by the opposite party in opposing his application for leave to sue as an indigent person. "all the provisions in Order 33 laid down the procedure till the application to sue as an indigent person is allowed. Therefore, under these circumstances, Madras High Court and Jammu and Kashmir High Court do not appear to have considered the effect of all the provisions contained in O. 33. With due respect to the judges that decided the said cases, the view expressed in the said Madras case and in the said Jammu and Kashmir case that Order 9, Rule 9 would apply to the cases of the dismissal of the application filed under Order 33, Rule 1, does not appear to be correct. This view of mine gets strengthened by the principles laid down under Order 33, Rule 15. Order 33, Rule 15 only bars a subsequent application to sue as an indigent person if the previous application is dismissed under Rule 7 (3 ). So long as an application to sue as an indigent person is not dismissed under O. 33, R. 7 (3), any subsequent application would not be barred by the previous dismissal for default. Order 33, Rule 15 only bars a subsequent application to sue as an indigent person if the previous application is dismissed under Rule 7 (3 ). So long as an application to sue as an indigent person is not dismissed under O. 33, R. 7 (3), any subsequent application would not be barred by the previous dismissal for default. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel Sri Aswatharam submitted that a habitual litigant can go on harassing the party in such cases by filing frivolous petitions after petitions. But Court can take into consideration the, conduct of such person while considering the subsequent application. If the subsequent application is in the opinion of the Court a frivolous one and is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings, the Court has got the power to dismiss such an application. Therefore, the said argument does not appeal to me in the least. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel Sri Aswatharam submitted that when the appellant himself filed I. A. IX to set aside the ex parte dismissal of I. A. VII, it only followed that even the appellant was under the impression that O. 9, R. 9 would cover such cases. Merely because a party takes a wrong view of the provisions of law, he cannot be denied a right. Therefore the said argument advanced by the learned Counsel Sri Aswatharam is rejected. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel Sri Aswatharam submitted that the present appeal was not competent even under O. 43, R. 1 (na), which reads as :- "an order on Rule 5 or 7 of Order 33 rejecting an upon for permission to sue as an indigent person. " admittedly the order of dismissal passed and impugned in this appeal does not fall under R. 7 of O. 33. But it falls under Rule 5 because the Court had dismissed the present I. A. X on the ground that the dismissal of the application filed under O. 9, R. 9 barred the subsequent application. According to Sri Aswatharam, R. 5 speaks only of rejection while the Judge in this order used the expression 'dismissed'. It is only a wrong use of the word. But the ultimate effect is rejection itself. According to Sri Aswatharam, R. 5 speaks only of rejection while the Judge in this order used the expression 'dismissed'. It is only a wrong use of the word. But the ultimate effect is rejection itself. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, the provisions contained in O. 33 will have to be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the C. P. C. in order to bring about a harmonious result When O. 33 is self contained and makes provisions for regulating the procedure for determination of pauperism or otherwise, it be would be idle to make reference to the other to provisions contained in the C. P. C. This Court in the said Srikanta Subbaraje, Urs's case. He (1972 (1) Mys LJ 111) has held that a subsequent petition under O. 33 seeking the permission to sue as an indigent, person is not barred by the dismissal of the first application for default. The principle laid down by this Court in the said decision also lends strength of the view that I have taken above. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, in the result, the order passed by the Court below dismissing I. A. X. only on a technical ground that a subsequent petition to sue as an indigent person is barred by the dismissal of the application filed under O. 9, R. 9 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed. I. A. X. is restored. Both the Advocates are directed to keep their clients or their local Advocates present in the Court below on 23-3-1987 with all their evidence relating to I. A. X. If the petitioner in I. A. X. is not ready with his evidence on 23-3-1987 in relation to I. A. X, the Court may proceed as if he has no evidence to lead regarding I. A. X. and it may dispose of I. A. X. according to law. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .