Jackson, J.

1. Bangaru Govinda Ayyar, petitioner in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923 applied to excuse 39 days delay, in presenting S.R. No. 12691, an application to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. He died and one Radakrishna Aiyar has applied to be brought on record as petitioner, in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923. Apparently, he only wishes to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis, as having derived that right from Bangaru Govinda Ayyar. He does not allege that he himself is a pauper. It has been ruled in Manji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo (1912) 36 Bom. 279, that the representative of a pauper cannot continue the suit in forma pauperis if not a pauper himself : cf. Lalit Mohan Mandal v. Satish Chandra Das (1906) 33 Cal. 1163. The old Calcutta ruling which Devar, J., in Manji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo (1912) 36 Bom. 279 says he cannot understand, Bhasbut Boss v. Buloam Doss 3 W.R. mis. 20, does not really present much difficulty, A party died and his legal representative applied to be placed on record. The District Munsif embarked upon an enquiry, whether the legal representative was or was not a pauper, and meanwhile the suit abated. The High Court held that so long as he was the actual legal r