P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on record. The present CRP is filed under the article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioners-plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 22. 7. 2003 made in LA. No. 194 of 2003 in O. S. No. 354 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, kadapa-cum-III Additional Junior Civil judge, Kadapa. ( 2 ) THE said application was filed under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint. The facts in detail had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the application and equally an elaborate counter was filed. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, by order dated 22. 7. 2003, had dismissed the said application on the ground of bar of limitation and also on the ground of the valuation exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction, if the proposed amendment is allowed. ( 3 ) I am not inclined to go into these questions for the reason that by virtue of the proposed amendment by adding para-7 (a), it was prayed that the plaintiffs may be permitted to sue as indigent persons and also consequential amendments to the schedule also had been prayed for. In the counter, specific objection is taken that such conversion cannot be permitted by allowing an application for amendment of pleading under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure (for brevity, c. P. C. ) and at the best the plaintiffs, if they are so advised, may be at liberty to withdraw the suit in accordance with the provisions of Order 23 rule 1 of C. P. C. with liberty to institute a fresh suit as indigent persons. The learned judge, no doubt, framed the point for determination as follows :"whether the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and it is permissible or not?"4 Elaborate reasons relating to the question of bar of limitation and the question of the valuation of the suit exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction, if proposed amendment is allowed, had been discussed. These aspects need not detain this Court any longer in the light of the fact that in the proposed amendment, specifically it was prayed for to permit the plaintiffs to sue as indigent persons. These aspects need not detain this Court any longer in the light of the fact that in the proposed amendment, specifically it was prayed for to permit the plaintiffs to sue as indigent persons. 5order 33 of CPC deals with suits by indigent persons and specific procedure is contemplated for such suits dealt with by order 33 of CPC. In the light of the different provisions of Order 33 of CPC, a suit by an indigent person at least for the purpose of amendment of pleading cannot be equated with a suit instituted in an ordinary course. Hence, in my considered opinion, it would amount to changing the very nature of the suit since the very institution of the suit by an indigent person stands on a different footing and after passing through several hurdles, ultimately the original petition presented as an indigent person may be numbered as a suit or may not be numbered as a suit or the parties may be directed to pay the necessary fees and comply with the other requisite formalities. 6 In the light of the same and especially in the light of the specific objection taken in the counter filed by the respondents before the Court below, I do not see any illegality or legal infirmity warranting interference with the impugned order dated 22-7-2003 on the file of Principal Junior civil Judge, Kadapa. ( 4 ) IN view of the same, the Civil revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.