1. The question of the effect of Rule 2 of the Agency Rules of 1924 has been argued before us. Mr. Rama Rao lays stress upon the fact that this rule reproduces only some of the provisions of Order 33 and Order 44, Civil Procedure Code while other provisions are not re-produced and contends that as the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the Agency Tracts, we ought not, in dealing with this case, be guided by the provision in Order 44 of the Code, which enables the High Court to refuse leave to appeal in forma pauperis, unless upon a perusal of the judgment and decree appealed from it sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law, or is otherwise erroneous or unjust. He also 3raws our attention to the fact that in the case of appeals from the Agent, there is no provision corresponding to Order 41, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. As regards the usage of the word may in Rule 2 of the Agency Rules he invokes the well established doctrine that in particular contexts, the word may must be understood as importing an obligation and contends that the Court is bound to exercise in favour of paupers the privilege intended to be conf