ORDER :- This revision is directed against an order refusing permission to file an appeal as a pauper.

2. A decree had been obtained against a firm, which consisted of two partners, one Sri Ram Lal and the other Sri Moonga Ram. Ram Lal filed an appeal to the District Judge on behalf of the firm and sought permission to file the appeal as pauper. The matter was sent for inquiry to the Civil Judge. The Civil Judge found that Ram Lal who had preferred the appeal on behalf of the firm had no means to pay the court-fee. He, however, found that there was no evidence on record that Moonga Ram the other partner did not have sufficient means to pay the court-fee, and further that as the firm had been carrying on buisness of Dal Mill before it was closed, it could not be said that the appellant firm did not have any assets out of which the court-fee could be paid. After recording these findings, the matter went back to the District Judge. The District Judge took the same view.

3. Counsel for the applicant contended that the relevant inquiry in the pauper proceedings was as to whether Ram Lal, the partner who had filed the appeal was a pauper or not, and not as to whether the other partner had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document