Bardswell, J.

1. The petition (O.P. No 21 of 1933) for leave to sue in forma pauperis was presented by the father of the present respondents. Before final orders could be passed on that petition the person who had presented it died. His sons, the respondents to this petition, then applied to be joined as his legal representatives. They did not want to sue in forma pauperis but sought to go on with the suit which their father had wanted to file, on payment of the necessary court-fees. The Additional Subordinate Judge has ordered that the petitioners are to be added as petitioners 2 to 4 in O.P. No. 21 of 1933, and that that petition is to be registered as a suit on their paying the necessary court-fee. This petition is for the revision of that order.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner relies on Lalit Mohan v. Satish Chandra (1906) 33 Cal. 1163, in which it was pointed out that the right to apply to sue as a pauper was obviously a personal right and could not survive in the legal representative who might or might not be a pauper himself. What the legal representative could do was to present a fresh application, if he was himself a pauper, for permission to sue or to ins