CHANDURKARJ.-This revision application has been referred to the Division Bench in view of the divergence of judicial view On the question as to whether the legal representatives of a plaintiff who was granted permission to sue in forma pauperis can continue the suit without payment of court-fee in case he is possessed of sufficient means to pay the required court-fee.

2. One Beant Kuwal widow of Balwantsingh had filed an application for permission to sue the defendants in forma pauperis and the relief claimed against the defendants was the declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property which consisted of a house and a decree for possession and mesne profits against original defendants Nos. 1 to 3. This application was allowed on 2-11-1965 and the application was registered as a regular civil suit on that date. A revision application challenging the order of the trial Court granting permission to the original applicant to file a suit in forma pauperies came to be rejected. However, on 29-8-1967 Beant Kuwar died and the present applicants Nos. I to 3 applied to the trial Court on 25-11-1967 for being brought on record as legal representatives. This application was allowed on 22-7-1968. After the present applicants were substituted as the legal representatives of deceased Beant Kuwar, an objection was taken on behalf of the defendants that the suit could not be allowed to be continued by the legal representatives unless they paid the requisite court-fee. It was contended on behalf of the legal representatives before the trial Court that since the plaint had already been registered after the original plaintiff was adjudge as a pauper, the legal representatives could continue the suit without being required to pay the court fee. The trial Court took the view that the legal representatives could not continue the suit without either proving that they were paupers or paying the requite court-fee. The trial Court had relied on the decision in Rao Saheb Manajl Rajuji Kalewar v. Khandoo Boioo1 and Jato Singh v. Malti Kuer2. The trial Court did not accept the view taken in Kalawati Devi v. Cdandra Prakash3. The trial Court accordingly directed the legal representatives to pay the requisite court-fee within 15 days from the date of the order or present an application for permission to continue the suit as paupers within the said period. This order is now challenged by the applicants-legal representatives in this revision application.

3. Shri N. M. Dharaskar, appearing on behalf of the applicants, contends that in a case where a person is allowed to sue as a pauper, the suit must be taken to be instituted on the date of the application, and since maintaining a pauper suit was not a personal right of the pauper and the legal representatives of a pal.\per brought on record and the deceased pauper were two distinct persons in the eye of law, the Court has no jurisdiction to ask the legal representatives to pay the requisite court-fee after the death of the pauper plaintiff. In short, the contention is that once an application made under Order 33, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed by the Court under Order 33, rule 8, the suit must be allowed to continue in the same manner even though the legal representatives of the deceased pauper plaintiff were in a position to pay the court-fee. The argument that after the death of the pauper plaintiff the Court has no power to direct the legal representative to pay the requisite court-fee is founded on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kalavati Devi's case (cited supra). The learned counsel for the applicants has also referred us to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore v. Dhanno Devi.4 We shall refer to these authorities in due course. The decision in Kalawati Devi's case takes a view contrary to the view of this Court in Raosaheb Manaji Rajuji Kalewar v. Kharulbo Baloo (cit. Sup.). In that case this Court has observed that the provisions of Order