JUDGMENT Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. .1. The question of procedure to be followed upon withdrawal of a prayer to sue as an indigent person, has arisen for consideration. The suit for partition of immovable properties and other reliefs, showing the valuation thereof for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction in excess of Rs. 20 crores was filed by the petitioner. A separate application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC was also filed. The same was registered on 27th April, 1998 and inquiry in regard to the petitioner being an indigent person was ordered. The said inquiry remained pending and no progress was made therein. After it had been pending for nearly nine years, on 25th July, 2007 it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner "has to withdraw the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC seeking declaration of the applicant as an indigenous person and he wants to proceed with the suit as a non indigenous person". Time was sought from the court for filing the court fees and for moving appropriate application to the said effect and to take steps in the suit. The matter was adjourned to 8th January, 2008. 2. Before the next date IA. No. 185/2008 under Sections 148/149 and Section 151 CPC was preferred for enlargement of the time for filing the court fees. This Court vide order dated 8th January, 2008 allowed the said application and gave three months more time to the petitioner for depositing the court fees. 3. The petitioner, however, failed to deposit the court fees and when the matter came up next on 18th July, 2008 it was orally submitted that the petitioner had been unable to pay the entire court fees of about Rs 20 lacs. The petitioner offered to pay the court fee of Rs 5 lacs immediately and sought extension of time for payment of the balance court fees. The petitioner was directed to deposit the court fees to the extent of Rs 5 lacs within two weeks and was granted further time of six months to deposit the balance court fee. 4. The court fee of Rs 5 lacs was deposited. When the matter came up next before the court on 22nd January, 2009, yet again time was sought for making up the deficiency remaining in the court fee. 4. The court fee of Rs 5 lacs was deposited. When the matter came up next before the court on 22nd January, 2009, yet again time was sought for making up the deficiency remaining in the court fee. On 17th February, 2009, the petitioner was granted further time of 30 days to make up the deficiency and it was further ordered that upon the failure of the petitioner, the plaint shall stand rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 5. The petitioner has till date not made up the deficiency. On 20th April, 2009 the counsel for the respondents submitted that upon the petitioner withdrawing the prayer to sue as an indigent person, there was no proceeding pending before the court and no further time could be given and has been wrongly given in the past, for payment of court fee. It was contended that upon the application for suing as an indigent person being withdrawn or being dismissed, the proceedings came to an end and if at all the petitioner is desirous of suing as a non indigent person an independent suit has to be instituted. The matter was thereafter posted for today for arguments of the counsel for the petitioner on this aspect. 6. Thus the question which has arisen for consideration is as to whether the present proceedings came to an end on 25th July, 2007 when the petitioner withdrew the prayer to sue as an indigent person or whether the suit filed in forma pauperis can be converted into an ordinary suit and time given to the petitioner for making up the deficiency in court fee. .7. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon Ma Saw Yin v. S.P.K.A.A.M. Firm AIR 1937 Rang 185 holding that when the application for leave to sue as a pauper is rejected the proceeding before the court are terminated completely and the plaint filed in forma pauperis can be considered as the plaint only if leave is granted to sue in forma pauperis It was further held that upon leave to sue as an indigent person being refused, the only course available to the applicant in such event is to pay court fees and institute the suit in the ordinary manner. It was further held that such a suit cannot be deemed to have been instituted at the time the application for leave to sue as a pauper was made, inasmuch as the two proceedings are entirely distinct and one commences after the termination of the other. It was further held that if the applicant is desirous to take advantage of Section 149 of the CPC, he must make his application for permission to pay the court fees on the proposed plaint or for grant of time for such payment before his application for leave to sue in forma pauperis is finally rejected. The counsel for the respondent also relied upon Alopi Prashad v. Mt. Gappi AIR 1937 Lah 151 holding that if the application to sue as an indigent person is rejected, it does not ripens into a plaint. It is only when the application is allowed and ripens into a plaint then the date of the institution of the suit relates back to the date of the filing of the application. It was further held that once the application is rejected, there is no proceeding before the court and time for payment of court fees cannot be granted. Reliance was also placed on the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chunna Mal v. Bhagwant Kishore : AIR 1936 All 584 holding that the application to sue as an indigent person cannot be treated as a composite document i.e., as an application to sue as a pauper and also as a plaint. 8. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner relies upon Order 33 Rule 15A inserted by the amendment to the CPC of 1976. 8. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner relies upon Order 33 Rule 15A inserted by the amendment to the CPC of 1976. It is urged that before the amendment different views were taken by the courts as to the status of the proceedings on rejection / refusal for leave to sue as an indigent person; it was further submitted that even though in Jugal Kishore v. Dhanno Devi : 1973 CriLJ 1769 the apex court settled the controversy which had been raging and held that where before the formal disposal of the application to sue as a pauper, the plaintiff offers to pay the court fee treating the application as his plaint or where the court agrees to treat it as a plaint and enlarges the time for payment of court fee, the application must be regarded as a plaint instituted on the day when the application was presented, the legislature in any case for clarification brought Rule 15A. Order 33 Rule 15 A is as under: 15A. Grant of time for payment of court fee. - Nothing contained in Rule 5, Rule 7 or Rule 15 shall prevent a court, while rejecting an application under Rule 5 or refusing an application under Rule 7, from granting time to the applicant to pay the requisite court fee within such time as may be fixed by the court or extended by it from time to time; and upon such payment and on payment of the costs referred to in The words "sub-rule (2) of" omitted by Act 19 of 1988, Section 3 and Second Sch.[] Rule 15 within that time, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was presented. 9. Reliance was also placed by the counsel for the petitioner on Mavji Kanji Jungi v. Premji Punja Hodas AIR 1992 Guj 147 . The counsel for the respondents in rejoinder has urged that the apex court in Jugal Kishore (supra) was concerned with a case where the applicant had before refusal/rejection of the leave to sue as a pauper asked for the application to be treated as a pliant and the court had granted such permission. The counsel for the respondents in rejoinder has urged that the apex court in Jugal Kishore (supra) was concerned with a case where the applicant had before refusal/rejection of the leave to sue as a pauper asked for the application to be treated as a pliant and the court had granted such permission. It is contended that in the present case no such permission had been granted and in fact on 25th July, 2007, a request for withdrawal of the application to sue as an indigent person was made and whereupon the application / plaint stood dismissed as withdrawn and the question of granting any time for making up the deficiency in court fee did not arise. It was further urged that the apex court in Jugal Kishore (supra) was not faced with the question as before the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court and which had held that the application to sue in forma pauperis could not at the same time be a plaint. 10. I do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the proceedings stood culminated/withdrawn on 25th July, 2007. Even though the counsel for the applicant/petitioner informed the court on that date that the petitioner was withdrawing his application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC and wants to proceed with the suit as a non indigenous person, neither any permission to withdraw was granted nor the proceedings dismissed as withdrawn. On the contrary, on the request of the counsel for the petitioner time was granted for filing court fee and appropriate application for withdrawal of application to sue in forma pauperis. The order sheet of any of the subsequent dates also do not lead me to believe that the court granted permission to the petitioner to withdraw and/or treated the petition to have been withdrawn and/or did not make any order dismissing the petition as withdrawn. 11. In fact, in my view, the facts of the present case are identical to that as of Jugal Kishore (supra) before the apex court. 12. The aspect of withdrawal of plaint and application is prescribed in Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC. The same envisages an application whether in writing or oral for withdrawal of the proceedings and does not seek to suggest that upon intention to withdraw, the proceedings ipso facto stand withdrawn. 12. The aspect of withdrawal of plaint and application is prescribed in Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC. The same envisages an application whether in writing or oral for withdrawal of the proceedings and does not seek to suggest that upon intention to withdraw, the proceedings ipso facto stand withdrawn. Thus in the absence of any express order granting permission to the petitioner to withdraw the application to sue in forma pauperis and in the absence of any order dismissing the petition as withdrawn, it cannot be said that the proceedings have culminated or that now there is nothing before this Court on which orders can be made. 13. The Gujarat High Court judgment aforesaid in fact has gone to the extent of holding that even where the leave to sue as an indigent person is refused, the request for payment of court fee can be made subsequently also, even if not made at the time of refusal. The same view has also been taken in Makarand Krishnaji Joshi v. Sadashiv Vithal Joshi : AIR 1990 Bom 159 where it is held that even if an application for permission to sue as forma pauperis is dismissed for default, procedure under Rule 15 and 15A has to be followed and opportunity has to be given to pay the requisite court fee. 14. The judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent of pre 1976 do not now appear to be good law in view of the insertion of Rule 15A as aforesaid. The same enables the court to when rejecting an application or refusing an application to sue in forma pauperis, to grant time to the petitioner to make the payment and expressly provide that upon such payment the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was presented. Here the request for grant of time to pay the court fee was made on the same day as the intimation of the petitioner having opted not to sue as an indigent person. Here the request for grant of time to pay the court fee was made on the same day as the intimation of the petitioner having opted not to sue as an indigent person. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I hold the law now to be that irrespective of the application to sue as an indigent person being allowed or disallowed or withdrawn, the plaint is deemed to have been instituted on the date when the application to sue as an indigent person was first presented, as long as in the case of the application being disallowed or withdrawn, the request for payment of court fee is made at the same time. The said requirement is satisfied in the present case. 15. Thus, it cannot be said that on 25th July, 2007 the application was withdrawn or rejected and thus this Court is empowered to from time to time grant time to the petitioner to make up the deficiency in court fee. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that the foreign remittance has taken some time and has assured that the money for the balance court fee has now been deposited and the respondent can now file the requisite court fee before the court at any time whatsoever.