Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
1. This is an old revision of 1957. The point involved is whether the learned llnd Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was right in dismissing the pauper petition under Order 33, Rule 5(d) C. P. C. as not disclosing any cause, of action. The following observations of the lower court will indicate the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge :
'Cause of Action 'means the whole bundle of factswhich it is necessary for the plaintiffs to prove in orderto entitle him to succeed in the suit. This also, embracesthe question of right to sue as in a wide sense, it meansthe necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit.As observed above as prima facie the jurisdiction of theCivil Court is barred, and the question of jurisdictioncould only be decided after deciding the questions oflaw and fact on the merits of the case, it cannot besaid that the prima facie the petitioners, have, subsistingcause of action for which this Court can give a relief.This is not a clear case where the allegations in theplaint clearly show a cause of action, hence the partyasking for decision of such a complicated question mustpay the Court fees before claiming the time of theCourt.'
2. The passage extracted above discloses firstly that if there are a bundle of facts which constitute a cause of action, those bundle of facts must first be established in order to substantiate the cause of action. But if so far as a petition under Order 33 Rules 5 and 7 is concerned, to say that facts must be proved first before a cause of action is established is to ignore that the petitioner has not yet been given an opportunity to prove those facts which would only arise at the stage after the petition has been numbered as a suit. Secondly complicated questions of fact or complicated questions which may arise in any particular pauper petition do not deter-mine the question of pauperism. When the petition dis-closes a cause of action, it is immaterial whether the case of the petitioner involves complicated questions of law or Facts. These do not, in my view, bear on the question of pauperism. A person who is not in a position to pay Court fee can nonetheless have a case which raises complicated questions of law as well as of facts. The criterion is not whether the case of the pauper raises complicated questions, but whether on the face of the plaint a cause of action does arise, i.e., on the allegations of the petitioner it discloses a cause of action. This is the approach that should be made in determining this question. In the circumstances, this revision is allowed with costs. The case is remanded to the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to dispose of the petition expeditiously according to law.