C.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition by the defendant against the order of the Additional District Judge, Dholpur dated 6 -4 -1972 by which the learned Judge allowed the nonpetitioner's application for amending the plaint.
(2.) THE nonpetitioner filed an application to institute a suit as a pauper. This application was rejected on 17 -11 -1971 and 15 days' time was granted to the nonpetitioner to file the requisite court fee. It appears that on the request of the plaintiff -nonpetitioner time to make up deficiency in the court fee was extended upto 14.1.1972. But on 11 -1 -72 the plaintiff made an application for amendment of the plaint by introducing certain changes in the cause of action as well as in valuation of the suit and submitted accurst -fee stamp of Rs. 200/ - being the deficit court fee payable on the amended plaint The learned Judge, as already stated above, allowed the amendment of which the piti -tioner is now aggrieved before me. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prayer for suing in forma pauperis having been rejected on 17 -11 -1971, the trial court had no jurisdiction to treat the application as a plaint and allow its amendment. He has relied upon Vertannes v. Lawson AIR 1935 Ran 336 and Bhairudan and Ors. v. Ratan Lal and Anr. ILR 2 (1952) Raj 497, and has further urged that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Daulal v. Khang Singh 1961 RLW 262 is contrary to Bhairudan's case
(3.) IT may be pointed out that under Order 33, Rule 15 Civil P.G a Sub -rule (2) has been introduced in Rajasthan which reads as under: Nothing in Sub -rule (1) shall prevent the court while rejecting on application under Rule 5 or refusing an application under Rule 7 from granting time to the applicant to pay the requisite court fee within a time to be fixed by the court and upon such payment the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application was presented.;