1. Bangaru Govinda Aiyar, petitioner in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923 applied to excuse 39 days delay in presenting S.R. No. 12691 of 1923, an application to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. He died and one Kadhakrishna Aiyar has applied to be brought on record as petitioner in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923. Apparently he only wishes to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis as having derived that right from Bangaru Govinda Aiyar. He does not allege that he himself is a pauper. It has been ruled in Mandji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo 11 Ind. Cas. 724 : 36 B.K 279 : 13 Bom. L.R. 577 that the representative of a pauper cannot continue the suit in forma pauperis if not a pauper himself: cf. Lalit Mohan Mandal v. Satish Chandra Das 33 C.P 1163 : 4 C.L.J. 234 The old Calcutta ruling which Davar, J., in Manaji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo 11 Ind. Cas. 724 : 36 B.P 279 : 13 Bom. L.R. 577 says he cannot understand Bhagbut Doss v. Buloram Doss 3 W.R. Mis. 20 does not really present much difficulty. A party died, his legal representative applied to be placed on record, the District Munsif embarked upon an enquiry whether the legal representative was or was not a pauper and meanwhile the suit abated. The High Court held that so long as he was the actual legal representative he should have been brought on record independently of a collateral inquiry whether he should sue as a pauper or not. In ruling, 'there was really no necessity for inquiry whether the applicant was a pauper or not,' the High Court means in such enquiry was not a necessary presedent to admitting the applicant to carry on the suit. The High Court did not mean that it was not a necessary precedent to admitting him as a pauper. For that, of course, there would have to be an enquiry. The assignee of pauper must pay the necessary Court-fetes or else have himself qua pauper declared entitled to sue in forma pauperis before continuing the proceedings. Time allowed for paying Court-fee is one month from this date.