Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This case was admitted by Burn, J., on the ground that the question involved in the case is of some general importance. On the exact matter in question, there seems to be some difference of opinion. A Bench of the Rangoon High Court in Mitra v. Corporation of Royal Exchange Assurance A.I.R. 1930 Rang. 259 has taken the view that an Official Receiver cannot be allowed to sue as a pauper where he himself is possessed of sufficient funds to carry on the suit. A different view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Mohammad Zaki v. The Municipal Board of Mainpuri (1918) 16 A.L.J. 440. The nearest analogy in my opinion seems to be the case of an executor in regard to which the preponderance of opinion in this Court has been that he can be permitted to sue as a pauper if the estate which he represents, does not possess sufficient funds to carry on the suit - vide Sivagami Ammal v. Gopalaswami Odayar (1924) 48 M.L.J. 390 and Ammakannammal v. Damodara. A different view has been taken by Jackson, J., in A.S. Radhakrishna Aiyar In re (1924) 88 I.C. 91 : 6 P.L.T. 380 where I find the one side was not represented. I therefore think it desirable that this mat