D. S. SINHA, J. Heard Sri A. N. Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-applicant. 2. This civil revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the Code), is directed against the order and judgment dated 26th August, 1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Jhansi rejecting the application of the applicant praying for withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff-opposite parties No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to sue as indigent persons under Order XXXIII of the Code vide order dated 14th February, 1986. 3. Before the court below it was contended on behalf of the applicant that he could not oppose the grant of permission to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons on account of his minority. 4. The court below has pointed out that the applicant was represented through his father, the natural guardian; that the natural guardian of the applicant had appointed a counsel to look-after his interest and defend him; and that the counsel did appear to participate in the proceedings on behalf of the applicant. Further, the court below has taken note of the fact that the controversy with regard to the grant of permission to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons was sought to be revived after an intermin able delay of more than three years. 5. The applicant, having participated in the proceedings through his counsel appointed by his father and natural guardian, is estopped from challenging the permission granted to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons on wholly untenable ground trial he could not oppose the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite parties for grant of leave to institute the suit as indigent persons because of his minority. Participation of the counsel appointed on his behalf by his father and natural guardian will be deemed to be participation of the applicant. In fact, the applicant is bound by the acts of his counsel and, in the absence of any fraud, misrepresentation or any like circumstance he cannot be permitted to repudiate the same. Moreover the question whether a person should be allowed to institute a suit as an indigent person is, basically, related to the payment of court fees with which the State Government alone is concerned. Moreover the question whether a person should be allowed to institute a suit as an indigent person is, basically, related to the payment of court fees with which the State Government alone is concerned. In the instant case, the order dated 14th February, 1986 granting permission to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons does not appear to have been challenged by any party includ ing the State Government. 6. Circumstances which may justify withdrawal of the permission to sue as an indigent person are enumerated in Rule 9 of Order XXXIII of the Code which provides that the court may, on the application of the defendant, or of the Government pleader, of which seven days clear notice in writing has been given to the plaintiff, order that the permission granted to the plaintiff to sue as an idigant person be withdrawn, it he is guilty of a vaxatious or improper conduct in the course of the suit; if it appears that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue as an indigent person; or if he has entered into any agreement with reference to subject matter of the suit under which any other person has obtained an interest to the subject matter. The ground taken by the applicant praying for withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff-opposite parties as indigent persons is not covered by any of the circumstances mentioned in Rule 9 of Order XXXIII of the Code. 7. Section 115 of the Code, as amended by the State of Uttar Pradesh, empowers the revisional court to call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to it, in which no appeal lies thereto and if it finds that the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested; or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, it may make such order in the case as it deems fit. Further, the power of the revisional court is hedged and circumscribed by the Second proviso to Section 115 which provides that it shall not vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or the order, it allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. 8. The order impugned herein, in the opinion of the court, does not amount to a case decided. The case cannot be said to have been decided unless the decision decides any right of the parties qua the subject matter of the controversy in the suit, and order declining to withdrawn the permission granted to the plaintiffs to sue as indigent persons does not amount to a case decided which is the first condition for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. The other conditions which are required to be satisfied for successfully invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the court are also not satisfied. Here it is no bodys case that the court below has either exercised a jurisdiction not visited in it or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. It has also not been demonstrated that the court below has, in passing the impugned order, acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity. It is also not demonstrated before this court that the impugned order, if varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings or the impugned order, if allow to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the applicant. Obviously, in the matter of payment of court fees payable by the plaintiff injury, if any may be sustained by the State Government, and not the defendant. This court, therefore, shall not be legally justified in interfering with the impugned order. The impugned order is perfect and not open to interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code. 9. In the result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .