Judgment :- Viswanatha Iyer, J. This is a petition purported to be filed under O.XLIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for allowing the petitioner to file the review petition as an indigent person. Petitioner was the appellant in the appeal which was dismissed with costs. She had been allowed to file the appeal as an indigent person as she was unable to pay the court fee required for the memorandum of appeal. The court fee payable on the review petition is Rs.4775/- under Art.5 of Schedule I of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960). According to the petitioner, she is unable to pay the court fee required for the review petition. She has therefore filed this petition for being allowed to file the review petition as an indigent person. The question is whether this can be allowed, as Order XLIV Rule 1 speaks specifically only of appeals. and does not refer to review petitions. We may also mention that Order XXXIII, the other provision in the Code relating to indigent persons also speaks expressly of suits only. 2. Order XLIV Rule 1 provides that any person entitled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay the fee required for the memorandum of appeal may present an application accompanied by the memorandum of appeal and may be allowed to file appeal as an indigent person subject in all matters including the presentation of such application to the provisions relating to suits by indigent persons, in so far as those provisions are applicable. Order XXXIII prescribes the procedure to be followed in applications for leave to institute a suit as an indigent person. It is necessary to refer only to Rule 8 which provides that where an application (for leave to institute a suit as an indigent person) is granted, it shall be numbered and registered and shall be deemed the plaint in the suit, and the suit shall proceed in all other respects asa suit instituted, in the ordinary manner except that the plaintiff shall not be required to pay any court fee or fees payable for service of process in respect of any petition, appointment of pleader or other proceedings connected with the suit. This provision applies mutatis-mutandis by virtue of the provisions of Rule I of Order XLIV to appeals as well so that when a suit or an appeal is allowed to be instituted as an indigent person, the plaintiff or the appellant is absolved of the liability to pay court fee in respect of any petition, appointment of pleader or olhcr proceedings connected with the suit or appeal. 3. Neither Order XXXIII nor Order XLIV applies specifically to review petitions. But they relieve the plaintiff or the appellant from paying the court fee on any proceeding connected with the suit or appeal, so that the plaintiff or the appellant need not pay the court fee on a review petition (at the time of filing it), if it is a proceeding connected with the suit. "Connected" means "related, affiliated, associated or having something to do with" Webster). The institution of a suit or appeal carries with it as connected with it, the liability to have the judgment reviewed in appropriate cases. The lis does not terminate on the rendering of the judgment because the judgment may be reviewed if a proper case is made out. A petition for review is therefore a proceeding connected with the suit or appeal in which case O.XXXIII Rule 8 which applies both to suits and appeals relieves the plaintiff or the appellant from paying court fee on the review petition. In Umda Bibi v. Naima Bibi, (1898) ILR 20 All 410, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was dealing with the question whether an application for review filed by the plaintiff in a suit which he had been allowed to institute in formal pauperis should bear court fee. After quoting S.410 of the Code of 1877, which corresponds to Order XXXIII Rule 8 of the Code of 1908, the Bench observed: "Now the word "suit" undoubtedly means the suit instituted on permission to sue as a pauper being given. That suit is then to proceed as an ordinary suit under the Act. One of the incidents of such a suit is that a party aggrieved by a decree or order in that suit may under certain circumstances present an application for review. The presentation of such an application is in our opinion a "proceeding connected with the suit", such as is contemplated by the final words of S.410. One of the incidents of such a suit is that a party aggrieved by a decree or order in that suit may under certain circumstances present an application for review. The presentation of such an application is in our opinion a "proceeding connected with the suit", such as is contemplated by the final words of S.410. We think then that when an application for review is presented in the course of the proceedings in a suit in forma pauperis, that application, like the plaint in the suit, is not liable to any court fee. To hold otherwise might, in our opinion, be productive of great injustice and hardship." This decision was applied by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court to a petition for review in an appeal, in Serajgunj Co-operative Urban bank v. Bindhubashini Dessya AIR 1936 Cal. 752 with the following observations: "The observations of the learned judges of the Allahabad High Court referred to above with which we entirely agree, apply with equal force to the case of an application for review of judgment passed on appeal by a pauper, regard being had to the specific provisions contained in 0.44, R.I, Civil P.C., allowing a person to appeal as a pauper, subject in all matters to the provisions relating to suits by paupers, in so far as those provisions are applicable. There can be no question that an application for review of judgment passed on appeal, must under the law, be considered to be in continuation of the appeal itself which was in forma pauperis; and both sound reason and ibvious justice in a case of this description demand, that such application must be held to be maintainable without payment of court-fees, at the time of filing the same, as in the case of the memorandum of appeal allowed to be presented without payment of adequate court-fees." A learned judge of the Orissa High Court had occasion to consider both these cases and follow them in Mt.Kainta v. Damru Meher, AIR 1964 Orissa 94 where he observed that a petition for review is a proceeding connected with the suit within the meaning of Order XXXIII Rule 8 and that no court fee is leviable on an application for review of the judgment by a person who has been permitted to sue as a pauper. In holding so, the learned judge while distinguishing the decision of the High Court of Madras In Re: Ananthakrishna Baliga, AIR 1943 Mad. 177, which concerned an application filed by the respondent in an appeal for review found support for his view in the following observations in that decision: "This rule (Order XXXIII Rule 8) however can exempt the plaintiff only from paying such fees as arc mentioned in that rule and cannot possibly be extended to a defendant". 4. As against these decisions, the learned Government Pleader, who appeared on notice, referred to another decision of the Allahabad High Court in Om Prakash v. State of U.P. AIR 1953 All. 115, rendered on an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, attempted to be filed in forma pauperis. The learned judges held that it was not permissible in the view that Order XLIV applied only to appeals entertainable by the High Court against the decisions of courts subordinate to it and not to further appeals to the Supreme Court. The impact or the effect of Order XXXIII Rule 8 was not under consideration in that case, and the decision turned on other points. The question whether a petition for review was connected with the suit or appeal was not in issue and the Bench had no occasion to consider the earlier decision in Umda Bibi. 5. The decisions of this court in Balan v. District Collector, 1972 KLT 588 and Thresia v. Xavier, 1976 KLT 209 holding that Order XXXIII is not applicable to proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution because it applies only to suits, are again not relevant for the decision of the issue before us, whether a petition for review is a proceeding connected with the suit or appeal. 6. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad, Calcutta and Orissa High Courts. We may also mention that it will be incongruous to hold that a petition for review of the judgment cannot be filed without court fee by the indigent plaintiff or the appellant, while the same plaintiff or appellant can file an appeal against the decree as an indigent person, and achieve the same result of get ling the decree set aside without even a fresh enquiry by virtue of the provisions of Order XLIVRule3. 7. 7. We therefore hold that the petitioner who had been allowed to file the appeal as an indigent person is entitled to file the review petition without payment of the court fee at this stage. Needless to say, appropriate directions under Rr.10,11 or 11A for payment of the court fee will have to be issued when the review petition is finally disposed of. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that she has not ceased to be an indigent person. As such a fresh enquiry into her pauperism is not required. The petition is therefore allowed and the petitioner is allowed to file the review petition without payment of the court fee at this stage. Office shall number the review petition and post it for admission.