1. THIS Reference raises the question of the true interpretation of Order 44, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 66 of 1956 of the Indian Parliament. The point in controversy between the parties is whether in showing cause in pursuance of a notice issued under Order 44, Rule 1, the respondent is entitled not only to challenge the pauperism of the applicant for leave to appeal as a pauper, but also to show under the proviso to Rule 1 that the application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the decree is neither contrary to law nor to any usage having force of law nor is otherwise erroneous or unjust.

2. THE facts of the case which are not in dispute are these: On March 22, 1955, the petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal as a pauper. On March 29, 1955, the Division Bench before which the petition was presented passed the following order:-

"let the application be sent down to the court below for enquiry into the alleged pauperism of the petitioner after giving notice to the other side as also to the Collector."

In pursuance of the aforesaid order the petition was sent down to the trial court under Order 44, Rule 2, Civi