KANNI Vs. VISWANATHA CHETTIAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUR learned brother Ramaprasada Rao, J., has thought it necessary to make a reference to a Bench for a decision upon the following question:

(2.) THE point involved appears to be simple and amply covered by authority which, to our minds, is clearly expressed in the decisions to which we shall presently advert. The learned District Judge, against whose order the civil revision petition has been taken, had the pauper appeal petition before him for admission. He apparently thought it fit to issue notice to the Respondent, not on the question of the pauperism of the appeal Petitioner but on the question whether the decree sought to be appealed from was contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law, or is otherwise erroneous or unjust. After the appearance of the parties and presumably after hearing them, the learned District Judge passed an order dismissing the application observing that there was no question of law in the case. He stated:

(3.) TO our minds, Order XLIV, Rule 1(2) it perfectly clear and it does not appear to us to be capable of admitting any discussion upon what is expected of the Court before which the appeal memorandum is filed. It says thus: