1. This is an application in revision of an order of the District Judge of Bareilly, who refused to entertain the applicant's application to file an appeal in forma pauperis. The order passed by the District Judge is as follows:
I see no reason to allow this appeal. Appli1 cation rejected.
2. It is submitted that this order was 1 passed in chambers, that it is not in accordance with the requirements of the 1 law and that the applicant should have 1 had a chance of being heard before the I District Judge. Order 44, Civil P.C., prescribe that a Court shall reject such an 1 application, unless upon a perusal there I of and of the judgment and decree appealed from it sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law or is other wise erroneous or unjust. Thus the duty I of the Judge in this case was to reject j the application, unless he was satisfied ' that the judgment was wrong; and the manner in which he was so to satisfy himself was by reading the judgment and the decree. The Code does not provide for the presence of the parties or for any hearing of the application. We find that in the present case the application was laid before the Judge with a report by the munsarim drawing his attention to the terms of Order 44, Civil P.C. We cannot assume that the Judge in face of this report, passed an order saying that he saw no reason to allow the appeal without reading the judgment and the decree.
3. It is in fact certain that the Judge did read the judgment and that he came to the conclusion that there was no case made out by the appellant for setting that judgment aside. It is possible that the Judge might have come to a different opinion had he heard arguments; but the law does not provide that he should hear arguments, and the intention of the legislature is clearly expressed in Order 44 and that is, that persons who do not pay the costs of an appeal are entitled to be heard only if the Judge, after reading the judgment, is of opinion that oh the face of it the judgment is wrong We can. not find that the Judge in that acted with material irregularity. He order was brief but we are satisfied that he complied with the law. We accordingly dismiss this application with costs.