1. This civil revision proceeding involves a simple question whether, when a court has held at the initial stage of the suit that the plaintiff (revision petitioner) has means to pay the court-fee due and could not be permitted to sue in forma pauperis, the same plaintiff could nevertheless urge at the later stage of the same suit that he ought to be so permitted, because a finding has supervened that court-fee due is not the court-fee initially set out in the plaint, but a higher amount. In rejecting this contention of the plaintiff, the court below has referred to several decisions and my attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel to Bava Sahib v. Abdul Ghani, AIR 1933 Mad 498, a Bench decision of this court, but none of the decisions cited at the Bar really impinges upon the simple principle which has to be applied to a situation of this kind. The decision in AIR 1933 Mad 498 really related to a converse situation of a person who had to pay a further court-fee than the initial court-fee upon which the plaint was filed, and then moved to be declared a pauper, without any prior finding against him under Order XXXIII C. P. Code.
Actually the present specific situation has been provided for by the clear terms of Order XXXIII Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under that provision, it has been enacted that an order refusing to allow the application to sue as a pauper bars a subsequent application of the same nature in respect of the same right to sue. Hence it is clear beyond doubt that, in the same litigation and after having been declared that he had the means to pay the requisite court-fee, the revision petitioner (plaintiff) cannot again move for being declared a pauper upon the occasion or pretext that the court-fee payable is larger than the court-fee shown by him in the plaint. But Order XXXIII, Rule 15 itself provides for a way out of the difficulty. Such applicant is at liberty to withdrawthe suit, and to institute another suit in respect of the same right provided that he first pays the costs incurred by the Government and the opposite party as the case may be in opposing the original application for leave to sue as a pauper. The petitioner must, therefore, work out his rights under the specific remedy provided for in this rule. The civil revision petition has no merits since the court below was clearly in the right and it is accordingly dismissed. But I do not think it necessary to make any order as to costs.
2. When the civil revision petition was dismissed, no further time was given for payment of court-fee due, nearly, Rs. 400. Under the circumstances time will now be given, three weeks, for payment, from the date of the receipt of records by the court below.