- (1.) THIS is a revision application by one Paulal against an order of the Senior Civil judge, Jodhpur, dated 22-8-56. The application has been contested on behalf of khang Singh.
(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this application are these. Paulal instituted a suit as a pauper against Khang Singh for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10234-4-3 on 27-1-55. On 1-8-56 the court passed an order refusing to allow him to sue as a pauper and directed him to pay court-fee by 22-8-56. The applicant did not pay the court-fee but presented an application on 22-8-56 requesting the court to extend the time for payment of court-fee by one month. Two grounds were given in this application. One was that the applicant had not been able to procure sufficient money to cover the court-fee and the other was that he wanted to file a revision application against the order of the court dated 1-8-56 dispaupering him. The application purported to be under Section 148 C. P. C. On this application the court passed the following order : - "learned counsel for the applicant has filed an application under Section 148 C. p. C. But I cannot grant further lime for filing the court-fee. The application is rejected. This case should be treated as having been disposed of". Against the above order the present revision application has been filed on the ground that there was refusal on the part of the court to exercise jurisdiction which it had under Section 148 C. P. C.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondent a preliminary objection is taken that the order of the court amounted to a rejection of the plaint and no revision lies against it as it is appealable. In support of the preliminary objection reliance is placed on the following decisions : in re Ramayamma, AIR 1954 Mad 880; In re Vidyudavalli Thayar, AIR. 1959 Mad 14; Badri Nath v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1957 Pepsu 14. On behalf of the applicant reliance was placed on --Munian v. Kesava, AIR 193. 5 Mad 467; In re Subrahmanyam, (S) AIR 1955 Andhra 74 (FB); Narsingh Pas v. Rati Ram, AIR 1956 Hyd 41.;