Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff who had been permitted to sue as a pauper died pending the suit and his-concubines son and heir who claimed to have succeeded to the subject-matter of the suit was added in his place as plaintiff 2 and permitted to proceed with the suit. Defendant 1 then applied under Order 33, Rule 9. Civil P. C, to dispauper the substituted plaintiff on the ground that he was possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The lower Court took evidence, and, being satisfied that the newly added plaintiff was not a pauper, directed him to pay the court-fee due on the plaint. He now seeks a revision of that order.

2. I am not prepared to interfere with the finding of the lower Court that the above plaintiff is not a pauper. The question is whether on this footing he can be dispaupered under Order 33, Rule 9, and ordered to pay the court-fee which would have been paid by the original plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper.

3. Now it was first suggested that an application to dispauper can only be filed against the particular plaintiff who was permitted to sue as a pauper and not against anybody who might take his place s