1. We are of opinion that no appeal lies in this case. On the 3rd of March 1925 the learned Subordinate Judge of Budaun reviewed an order of his passed a month earlier. An application was made by a lady to sue as a pauper, and by the first order the lower Court dismissed the application. Subsequently there was an application for review in which it was pointed out that there had been a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The lower appellate Court accepted this view of the matter, revised its previous order, granted the application for review, and allowed the applicant to sue as a pauper. Under Order 47 an appeal is strictly limited under Rule 7. An order granting an application for review may be objected to only on the ground that it was in contravention of the provisions of Rule 2 or in contravention of the provisions of Rule 4. There is a third ground of appeal regarding limitation with which we are not concerned here. The provisions of Rule 2 relate to the Court to whom applications for review must be made when the grounds of review show the existence of an error apparent on the face of a decree. Under Rule 4 an application for review shall not be granted without previous notice to the opposite party, and when the applicant alleges the discovery of new matter or evidence, the Court must see that there is strict proof of such allegation.
2. In the present case the ground of attack is that the lower Court was incorrect in thinking that there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. In such a case no appeal is provided for under Order 47. The learned Counsel for the applicant argues that the lower Court had acted in contravention of the provisions of Rule 4 by granting the review. In Rule 4, Clause (2) there are certain provisions with which the Court has to comply on granting a review. In our opinion the appeal will be confined to a disregard of these provisions only and not to any matter on which the granting of the review is based. In the present case there has been no breach of the provisions of Rule 2 or Rule 4.
3. We dismiss this appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.