R.Dayal, J. - (1.) One Ganga Prasad instituted the suit in 1944 as a pauper. He prayed for permission to sue as pauper. The necessary permission was granted. Issues were framed on the 18th November, 1946. Ganga Prasad died on 39-11-10-10. Smt. Kalawati, his sister applied to be added as a party to the suit as Ganga Prasad's legal representative. She just mentioned in the application that she was also a pauper hut she did not make any formal prayer in the application that she be either allowed to sue as pauper or to continue the suit as a pauper. On the 10th August, 1949 the court ordered that she he added as a party as legal representative of Ganga Prasad. The court then proceeded into an inquiry whether she was a pauper and held on the 17th February, 1950 that she was not a pauper, and therefore she should pay the requisite court-fee.
(2.) Kalawati then filed a revision in this Court contending that she should have been allowed, as legal representative, to continue the suit as provided under Order 33 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that she could not be ordered to pay court-fee when there was no application by the defendant or the Government Pleader under Order 33 Rule 9 of the Code and that it was not necessary for her to prove for the purpose of continuing the suit that she was a pauper.
(3.) This revision came up for hearing before brothers Mukerji and Tandon. They differed and then passed an order on 31-7-1957 to the following effect : "Since we differ in regard to the question arising in this case: we direct that this case, along with our opinions be laid before the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of another Judge." The case has now been referred to me for the necessary opinion.;