1 The short question in this petition is whether the petitioner herein, who is the 22nd respondent in the appeal, was entitled to notice before the appellant was allowed to appeal in forma pauperis.

2 In C.M.P. No. 1830 of 1960 I granted leave to the appellant, who was allowed to sue as a pauper in the lower court, to appeal as a pauper after giving notice to the State. No notice was issued to the respondents in the appeal. The 22nd respondent has filed this petition to set aside the order in C.M.P. No. 1830 of 1960 on the ground that the order was passed ex parte and that the 22nd respondent was entitled to notice before the appellant was allowed to appeal as a pauper.

3 There is a recent decision of this court in Krishna Bhatta v. Anantha Bhatta (1961 KLT 38), wherein Madhavan Nair, J. has considered a similar question in extenso. In that case notice was issued to the respondent and he sought to oppose the application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Madhavan Nair J., after reviewing several decisions of several High Courts, has ruled that the very issuance of a notice after hearing the applicant's counsel tantamounts to a record that the Court saw reason to think that the de