THUMMALAPALLI VENKATAKRISHNAYYA Vs. THUMMALAPALLI SAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is argued that no revision petition lies: vide Mohammad Ayub V/s. Mohammad Mahmud [1910] 32 All. 623. I am not prepared to follow the distinction laid down in that decision.

(2.) I am afraid that this application must be allowed. Applicant has let in no evidence of her pauperism and has not even presented herself for cross- examination. The order is set aside, and the application will be re-heard, each party to let in such evidence as it has pro and con. Costs of this petition will abide the result.