Fletcher, J.:— These are two appeals from the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapore. Appeal No. 391 is preferred against the orders dated the 20th June and the 16th July, 1914 and Appeal No. 426 is preferred against the order dated the 1st August, 1914. Appeal No. 391 is infructuous because the learned Judge subsequently passed an order cancelling the orders dated the 20th June and the 16th July, 1914 against which that appeal has been preferred. That appeal is accordingly dismissed. We are now concerned only with Appeal No. 426 which is preferred against the order of the 1st August, 1914. The Plaintiff in this case has applied for leave to sue in formâ pauperis. That application has not yet been judicially determined; it is still pending before the Court. But before the determination of that application, the Plaintiff applied to the Court and obtained an order of attachment before judgment under the provisions of Or. XXXVIII, rr. 5 and 6, C.C.P The learned Judge passed the present orders, the last one being the only one with which we are now concerned. The question is “Had the learned Judge jurisdiction to make an order in the suit attaching a portion of the Defendants' property before judgment before he had determined whether the leave of the Court should be granted to the Plaintiff to sue in formâ pauperis?” The matter is perfectly clear on the rules that he had not. Until the Judge has determined whether or not the Plaintiff should be permitted to sue as a pauper, there is no suit before the Court; it is merely an application. The rules laid down in Or. XXXIII, C.C.P, are quite clear on that. Or. XXXIII, r. 8, shows clearly that there is no suit in existence until the application to sue in formâ pauperis has been granted. The matter is covered by judicial authority. If authority is required for the proposition, we need only refer to the decision of Wedderbum, J., in the case of Dwarkanath Narayan v. Madhavrav Visvanath. Appeal No. 426 is, therefore, allowed and the order of the learned Judge of the Court below, dated the 1st August, 1914, set aside and the Plaintiff's application for attachment before judgment rejected. The Respondent must pay to the Appellants their costs both in this Court as well as in the Court below. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at three gold mohurs.
Newbould, J.:— I agree.
N.G
Appeal allowed.