SUKHIA ALIAS SARASWATI Vs. ISHWAR SATDAL SHIVE THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI R. N. Singh appeared for the appellants and SRI Sankatha Rai appeared for the respondent.

(2.) THIS first appeal from order is directed against the order dated 31-10-1977 of the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, allowing the review application of the respondent, setting aside the order dated 3-9-76, passed in the appeal holding that the present respondent's appeal is not maintainable, and fixing 16-12-77 for disposal of that appeal No. 47 of 1973 afresh.

(3.) THE next point arising for consideration is whether any appeal lay from an order declining to restore the forma pauperis application, which was rejected in default. It is being urged that Section 26 provides that the suit may be instituted by filing a complaint or in any other manner provided under the law and under Section 149 CPC, there is a provision for allowing time for making good the deficiency in court-fee and unless any order was finally passed therein, it will be wrong to say that in forma pauperis proceedings was not a suit. I am unable to agree with this submission. I am simply to consider whether an appeal will lie from an order rejecting the application for. permission to sue in forma pauperis in default and rejecting the restoration application. In this connection I may quote the relevant provisions contained in Order 43 Rule 1 (c), CPC :-