ORDER :- I think the court below was in error in making an enquiry into the questions whether Balramdas through whom the deity as plaintiff sought permission to sue in forma-pauperis was competent to represent the deity and whether the deity could maintain a suit against the Mahant. Such questions, in my opinion, cannot be enquired into under Order 33 of the C.P. Code. It was the duty of the learned Judge of the court below first to consider if the application of the deity for permission to sue in forma-pauperis could be rejected on any of the grounds mentioned in R.5 of O.33, C.P. Code and if not then to make an enquiry whether the deity was possessed of sufficient means so as to pay the court-fees.

2. The deity through Balramdas came before the court with the allegation, inter-alia, that Mahant Prem Das had been mismanaging the endowed properties and had illegally alienated them to strangers. Mahant Prem Das and the transferees were impleaded as defendants.

3. Mahant Prem Das filed an objection against the application of the deity. Inter-alia, it was alleged that the deity under the law could not be declared as pauper as it was not a natural person and that it could not sue the Mah

Click Here to Read the rest of this document