ORDER 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 8.7.2011 whereby application of petitioner filed under section 151 CPC is rejected by the Court below. The petitioner's another application under Order 47 rule 1 CPC is rejected by order dated 9.9.2011, Annexure P-2. This order is also called in question. 2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for compensation contending that her son Jitendra died on 31.1.2008 due to electrocution and respondent No.1 and 2 are responsible for supply and maintenance of electricity. In the said suit, an application under section 151 CPC was filed stating that plaintiff does not have any movable, immovable property and, therefore, she is not capable to pay the court-fees. She sought exemption from payment of court-fees as per the State Government notification dated 1.4.1983. The trial Court rejected the said application. 3. Assailing the order dated 8.7.2011, it is urged that as per the pleadings and evidence led by the plaintiff, she was entitled to get the benefit of notification dated 1.4.1983 and Court below has erred in declining the same. The Court below has further erred in rejecting the application for review. 4. Shri Rajendra Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the order Annexure P-2 shows that petitioner herself contended that her application was actually filed under Order 33 rule 1 CPC, if the order is treated under said provision, it will be appealable as per Order 47 rule 1 (na) of CPC. 5. Shri Rajendra Bhargava supported the order by contending that as per Collector's report, petitioner's husband has sufficient income and therefore, her case does not fall within the ambit of notification dated 1.4.1983. 6. No other point is pressed by the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is seen that the petitioner alone is the claimant. In the plaint itself, she has specifically stated that she is not residing with her husband. She deposed her own statement in which she has specifically stated that her husband has left her 5-6 years back and she is residing at a different place. This statement of petitioner could not be demolished during cross examination. The Court below rejected the said application under section 151 CPC on the ground that the petitioner appears to have taken this stand to avoid payment of court-fees. This statement of petitioner could not be demolished during cross examination. The Court below rejected the said application under section 151 CPC on the ground that the petitioner appears to have taken this stand to avoid payment of court-fees. The Court below opined that if petitioner is a deserted/divorced woman then only she is entitled to enjoy the benefit of Government notification. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the said finding of the Court below runs contrary to the notification. It is apposite to reproduce the notification for ready perusal. The notification reads as under :- “5. The Notification dated 1.4.1983 reads as under :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 35 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (No.7 of 1870), the State Government hereby remits in the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the court-fees mentioned in Articles 1-A and 2 of the first Schedule and Articles 5, 17 and 21 of the second Schedule to the said Act payable on plaint by the following categories of the persons whose annual income immediately preceding the date of presentation of plaint from all sources does not exceed rupees six thousand, namely - i) member of Scheduled Tribes; ii) member of Scheduled Castes; iii) minors; iv) women; v) artisan; vi) unskilled labourer; vii) landless labourer; viii) person belonging to the weaker section of the society. Explanation -- For the purposes of this notification :- 1) 'Member of Scheduled Castes' means a member of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within caste, race or tribe specified as such with respect to the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 341 of the Constitution of India; 2) Member of Scheduled Tribes' means a member of any tribal community or part of or group within a tribe or tribal community specified as such with respect to the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 342 of the Constitution of India.” (E.S.) 9. A plain reading of notification makes it clear that it nowhere provides that a woman is entitled to get the benefit of notification only when she is deserted/divorced. Thus, the order of Court below runs contrary to the said notification. 10. Apart from this, petitioner has pleaded and proved that she is not living with her husband for last 5-6 years. There was no reason to disbelieve such statement of the petitioner. Thus, the order of Court below runs contrary to the said notification. 10. Apart from this, petitioner has pleaded and proved that she is not living with her husband for last 5-6 years. There was no reason to disbelieve such statement of the petitioner. Moreso, when such statement could not be demolished in the cross-examination. Thus, the order of Court below is based on wrong, improper and irrelevant consideration. 11. Resultantly, the order dated 8.7.2011 is set aside. Since, the basic order is set aside, the order under review dated 9.9.2011, Annexure P-2, is also set aside. The application under section 151 of CPC, Annexure P-4 is allowed. The Court below will proceed from that stage, in accordance with law.