(1) In this revisional application, the peitioners seek to challenge the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, granting leave to the two opponents who are liquidators of General Cotton Mills Ltd., to sue as paupers.

(2) As this is a pauper matter, the question of Court-fee is involved. The Government Pleader appears in the matter today as he cameto know of it. He waives notice and wants to appear in the case. I grant him permission to appear.

(3) The said Company viz., Gendalal Cotton Mills Ltd., stopped working on July 29, 1954, and a petition was presented for winding it up on the same day in the District Court. The order for winding up was made on November 3, 1954, and a liquidator was appointed. The loquidator was an Advocate of that Court. As he could not carry on the proceedings, he resigned on May 8, 1955. On June 6, 1955, the two opponents namely Opponent No. 1-A and B, were appointed joint liquidators. The petitioners are the trustees under a debenture trust deed created by the Company on December 31, 1953. Debentures were issued by the then directors of the Company with the sanction of the Controller of Capital issue. The liquidator filed the present application for leave to sue in forma pauperis on December 30, 1956. The sum and substance of their allegation was that the debentures were issued and the trusteed was executed as a result of collusion between the petitioners and the directors of the Company and that, therefore, the trustdeed was void and inoperative. The liquidators on that footing claimed possession of assets of the Company which were shown in the Schedules to the application. They also claimed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 as past damages for the use and occupation in lieu of rent for the factory. The liquidators prayed that as they had not sufficient assets of the Company in their possession to pay the court-fees, they should be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. The court-fee payable is about Rs. 12,500.

(4) The petitioners contended that as the liquidators were suing on behalf of the Company was not a person, such an application was not competent under the Civil Procedure Code. This contention was accepted by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, but Mudholkar J., in a revisional application to this Court held otherwise and remanded the matter for disposal on other points in accordance with law. At the trial, it was proved before the learned Judge that the liquidators had, during the pendency of the application, more than Rs. 13,000 in their possession. The learned Judge held that, inasmuch as on the date when the application was being decided, that amount was actually spent by the liquidators, they were entitled to ask for leave to sue in forma pauperis. He also directed the petitioners to pay costs of the liquidators and their own upto the stage of the revisional application decided by the High Court. This decision is sought to be challenged in this petition.

(5) Mr. Mistree on behalf of the petitioners contends (1) that inasmuch as it was proved that during the pendency of the application more than a sum of Rs. 12,500 the actual amount of the court-fee leviable on the claim had come in possession of the liquidators the Court had no jurisdiction to grant them leave to sue in forma pauperis; (2) that the creditors and shareholdres in a meeting unanimously refused to contribute to the expenses of the suit, which showed that they were not in favour of prosecuting the suit, and (3) that as the liquidators had not filed a schedule of the property as required by the provisions of order 33, Rule 2, the application ought to have been rejected in limine, relying upon the decision in Ramniklal v. Jaiswal Mathuralal 1955-6 Guj LR 599: (AIR 1965 Guj 214).

(6) It is not necessary for me to consider the last two points, as it appears to me that the first contention made by Mr, Mistree is a formidable one and must be allowed.

(7) Order 33 deals with an application for leave to sue informa pauperis, Rul