- (1.) THESE are three applications by Shrimati Gianibai.
(2.) THE first application is under secs. 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and she prays that her appeal may be permitted to be treated as a revision in view of the fact that she is a poor widow. All that is necessary to say about this application is that it is absurd. THE point was decided by us on the 26th March, 1954, and we then ordered that there could only be an appeal in this case. Considering that an appeal lies under the law, we cannot permit a revision. The second application is for leave to appeal as a pauper and a question of limitation has arisen in that connection. Learned counsel for the applicant urges that Art. 181 of the Limitation applies and not Art. 170, and, therefore, his application is within time. The argument is that he is not applying for leave to appeal but is asking for permission to continue the appeal which has already been filed in forma pauperis. Reliance in this connection is placed on Saliayappa vs. Lakshmanan (l ). In that case the question was not in fact decided through there some remarks were made which favour the view put forward on behalf of the applicant. It is, however, remarkable that in that case, though the learned Judges said that the matter did not fall under O. XLIV, R. 1, C. P. C. , they used the proviso to that rule to dismiss it. We are of opinion that this application is nothing more or less-than application under O. XLIV, R. 1. Learned counsel calls it an application for continuing the appeal as a pauper ; but this, in our opinion, is the same thing as an application for leave to appeal as a pauper, Three other causes were also referred to in this connection, viz, Nirmul Chandra Mookerjee vs. Dayal Nath Bhuttacharjee (2 ). Revji Patil vs. Sakharam (3) and Thompson vs. The Calcutta Tramway Co. , Ltd. (4 ). These cases do not apply to the present circumstances as they related to suits and not to appeals and the question of limitation did not arise in them at all. We are clearly of opinion that as there is a specific provision for such an application under Art. 170. Art. 181 will not apply. Reference in this connection may be made to Gati vs. Racha Kunwar (5 ). The present application is therefore, barred under Art. 170. of the Limitation Act. The third application is under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The first question is whether sec. 5 applies to such an application. It is enough to say that the Words "leave to appeal" appearing in sec. 5 are wide enough to cover such an application. In this connection, we may refer to Ram Charan vs. Bansi Dhar (6) and Ram Dulari vs. Allan Bibi (7) which take the same view. The applicant can, therefore, ask us to condone the delay in making the application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. We, therefore, order that notice of the application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act should be issued to the opposite party. We may add that we are not disposed to dismiss the application under the proviso to O. XLIV, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that is why notice is being issued under sec. 5. .;