1. It is not disputed that by executing the document Ex. 0 the petitioner has transferred the whole of his interest in the subject-matter of the appeal to a third party. It is contended for him that Order 33, Rule 5(e) has no application because there was no appeal in contemplation at the time when he executed Ex.-C. Ex.-C was executed in 1932 when the suit was pending; the decree was passed on 17th July 1934 and only thereafter the question of an appeal by this petitioner could arise. I cannot accept this reading of Order 33, Rule 5(e). There is no doubt whatever but that an appeal is now 'proposed' and that the would-be appellant has entered into an agreement under which another person has obtained an interest in the subject-matter of the appeal. The case falls precisely within the words of Rule 5(e), Order 33, and I must respectfully decline the petitioner's learned advocate's invitation to follow the ruling in Abdul Jabbar v. Sambibi 1934 Cal 740. I prefer with respect the view taken by Mockett, J., in Veeraraghava Rao v. Venkatanarasimha Since reported in 1936 Mad 662. The present petitioner has no interest whatever now in the subject-matter of the appeal; there is another person who has acquired all his interest. The suggestion on behalf of the petitioner is apparently that he should be allowed to file the appeal for his transferee, free of Court-fee, while the transferee, able to pay but risking nothing, stands by. I believe Order 33, Rule 5(e) was designed to prevent anything of the kind.
2. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is therefore refused and this petition is dismissed with costs. Time to pay Court-fee is asked for but refused as I am satisfied that there were no bona fides in the application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.