1. The order dismissing the pauper application on the sole ground that some time subsequent to the application and before the Court passed its orders the petitioner became an insolvent, cannot be supported. The grounds on which a pauper application can be rejected are stated in Order 33, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code. Subsequent insolvency is not one of the grounds. It is suggested that on his becoming an insolvent the petitioner ceased to have a cause of action under Clause (d); but Clause (d) only provides that his allegations should show a cause of action. That refers to his allegations in his plaint and not to subsequent events. The proper procedure would have been to enquire whether -the petitioner was a pauper and if he was and his allegations showed a cause of action to give him leave when his application would be numbered as a suit. If he has become insolvent the provisions of Order 22, Rule 8 can then be applied. It is clear that the Official Receiver cannot make himself a party to the pauper application but only to the suit after it is allowed.
2. The petition is therefore allowed and the Lower Court's order is set aside and the case remanded to that Court for a fresh disposal according to law. Costs to abide and follow the result.