- (1.) PANCHMURTI Shivaling alias Pancho Pandwa filed a petition to institute a suit in forma pauperis' against a number of opposite parties. The application to sue as a pauper was rejected on 25-8-1945, it being held, after notice had been issued to the Collector and the opposite parties, that it had not been made out that the plaintiff deity was a pauper. The plaintiff-applicant then tiled another application for the review of this order. This application was allowed on 17-11-1945. By this order, the previous order of 25-8-1945 was cancelled and the Collector was required to report about the financial position of the plaintiff deity. The opposite parties were allowed an opportunity to oppose the application. Finally on 16-3-1946 the Court ordered: "1 accept the Collector's report that the plaintiff is not a pauper. The application is, therefore, rejected with costs to the opposite parties concerned. The plaintiff will pay court-fee necessary for the suit within 30 days from the date of this order". The plaintiff then paid the requisite court-fee and the suit proceeded.
(2.) THE defendants questioned the correctness of the valuation of the suit and the Court decided that the suit had been undervalued and that, on proper valuation, the amount of court-fee necessary should be Rs. 1,200/- and odd instead of Rs. 500/-and odd which had been paid in the first instance. The plaintiff was unable to pay the excess court-fee demanded and again applied to be permitted to sue as a pauper. This application was rejected summarily on 17-7-1948 by a brief order: "the plaintiff has already paid court-fee. He cannot be declared a pauper now. Rejected. " the plaint was ultimately rejected for want of sufficient court-fee on 26-7-1948.
(3.) THE plaintiff took other steps for the restoration of the suit but he ultimately failed In getting the suit restored. Thereafter he presented another application to be permitted to sue as a pauper with respect to the same subject-mafter. This application was opposed by the defendant opposite parties on the ground that a second application to, sue as a prayer was not maintainable in view ot" Rule 15, Order 33, Civil P. C. This objection did not appeal to the learned Civil Judge. He considered the prayer for permission to sue in 'forma pauperis' on merits and allowed the plaintiff to sue as a pauper. It is against this order that the defendant opposite parties have filed this application in revision".;