PAULOSE MATHAI Vs. A A JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed two appeals before this Court in forma pauperis; and the appeals were dismissed by us. He has now filed a petition to review the said judgment; and has filed this miscellaneous petition along with the review petition for leave to file the review petition in forma pauperis. The question we have to consider is whether such a petition is maintainable.

(2.) Since no counsel appeared for the petitioner (the petitioner appearing in person), we requested Sri. V. Parameswara Menon to appear amicus curiae. We also issued notice to the Government Pleader, since there was no decision of our Court on the point. Sri. Parameswara Menon brought to our notice almost all the relevant decisions touching the question. We do not think we need refer to all of them; and we shall be content by referring to those which have a direct bearing on the question.

(3.) In Ma Nyein v. Yone P. D. Patel (AIR 1930 Rangoon 280) a Division Bench of the Rangoon High Court had to consider a similar case. The Division Bench held that, since the Code of Civil Procedure provided separately for suits, appeals, applications in revision and applications for review and also expressly provided that in certain circumstances leave to litigate in forma pauperis might be given in the case of suits and appeals and since there was no provision similas for cases of revision and review, an application for leave to file a review petition in forma pauperis was incompetent. This judgment contains no elaborate discussion on the question, the sole reasoning being that, since separate provisions are made for suits, appeals, revisions and reviews and since separate provisions are also made for leave to file a suit and leave to file an appeal in forma pauperis, regarding revision and review, such applications are not in the contemplation of the legislature. This is certainly one way of looking at the question. It is now well established that an appeal is a continuation of the suit. In spite of that, separate provision has been made in O.44 for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. In the light of this, even if the review petition is construed as a continuation of the appeal, still, in the 'absence of a specific provision for leave to, file a petition for review in forma pauperis, such an application for leave is not maintainable. This is the reasoning of the Rangoon High Court.