JUDGMENT

Mathur, J. - This is an execution First Appeal By Har Prasad defendant no. 1, now represented by his heirs, against the order dated 5-1-1963 of the Civil judge of Bijnor, ordering that the amount of court-fee payable by the plaintiff, Smt. Lali alias Umrawati, who was granted permission to sue in forma pauperis, be calculated, and such amount shall be recoverable by the State Government from defendant no. 1 as provided in order XXXIII, rule 10, C. P. C.

2. The order challenged in this appeal does not affect the interest of Smt. Tarawati, respondent No. 3, who has died during the pendency of the appeal. Persons concerned with the order are the plaintiff, defendant No. I and the State Government. Consequently, if any other party is not served or his legal representatives are not brought on the record, the appeal shall not abate. Hence the appeal can be taken up and decided on merits even though the legal representatives of Smt. Tarawati have not been brought on record and, formally speaking, the appeal abates as far as she is concerned.

3. Two points for consideration are whether the State Government is a necessary Party to the appeal and it deserves to be rejected on. the ground that, the State Government was not impleaded as a co-respondent. The second point raised is that the present appeal is not maintainable.

4. The two points are inter-connected and it shall be proper to first of all consider whether it was necessary for Har Prasad, defendant No. 1, to implead the State Government in this appeal.

5. Under Order XXXIII, Rule 12, C. P. C. the State Government has the right, at any time, to apply to the Court to make an order for the payment of court-fees under Rule 10, Rule 11 or Rule 11-A. Once the State Government makes the application, it becomes a necessary party not only to that proceeding but also to other proceedings arising therefrom. The same, however, cannot be said where the Court suo motu passes an order under one of these rules.

6. When a pauper institutes a suit, he impleads as defendants only such persons against whom he has some cause of action or claims some relief. However, after entertaining the application to sue as pauper, it is necessary to give at least 10 clays' clear notice to the defendants and also to the Government Pleader for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his pauperism (vide Order XXXIII, Rule 6, C. P. C.) . Under Rule 9 an application for dispaupering the plaintiff can be made by the defendant or by the Government Pleader. The Government Pleader can be treated as the agent of the Collector or the State Government. The State Government is thus a party to the pauper proceeding. but cannot he deemed to be a party to the suit. This shall be clear from Rules 8 and 14 of Order XXXIII, C. P. C. also.

7. Rule 8 provides that where the pauper application is granted, it shall be numbered and registered and shall be deemed to be the plaint in the suit and the suit shall proceed in all other respects as a suit instituted in the ordinarly course. In a suit instituted in the ordinary course, it is not necessary to implead the State Government unless some relief is claimed against it. Hence after the pauper application is granted or is rejected, and the suit proceeds on payment of the necessary court-fee or otherwise the State Government is not a necessary or proper party to the suit.

8. Similarly, after an order has been made under Rule 10, 11 or 11-A it is mandatory for the court under Rule 14 to cause a copy of the decree or order to be forwarded to the Collector, who may recover the amount of court-fee as if it were an arrear of land revenue. In case the State Government was a necessary or proper party to the suit or to the passing of the order under Rule 10, 11 or II-A, it would not have been necessary to provide that a copy of the decree or order shall be forwarded to the Collector. Parties to the proceeding are deemed to be aware of the orders passed in such pro