ORDER This revision petition which arises out of a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Manipur, is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff, dated 29-8-57 whereby be repelled two contentions of the defendants, the petitioners before this Court. The first contention relates to the grant of permission to bring the suit in forma pauperis, and the second to the maintainability of the suit brought by a next friend, who is not the shebait of the plaintiff idol. 2. The suit was brought for setting aside the sale of land which is alleged to be debuttor property entered into by the Shebait (defendant No. 2) in favour of defendant No. 1. Some other reliefs like possession etc. were also claimed and the value of the land was stated to be Rs. 1,600/-. It was also alleged that this was the only property of the idol. 3. The application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was opposed on the ground that one of the next friends was managing the property during the absence of the Shebait and was possessed of sufficient funds out of which he could pay the court-fee necessary on the plaint. The application was not opposed on behalf of the Government, and after hearing the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Munsiff found the plaintiff to be a pauper and granted tile necessary permission. It is well-settled that in such a case, the question whether the next friend is a pauper or not is immaterial and what has to be seen is whether the plaintiff (idol in this case) is a pauper or not. The evidence led was such that the learned Munsiff could certainly come to the conclusion which he reached, and this Court in a proceedings of this kind will not examine the matter like an Appellate Court. I do not, therefore, find any reason for interfering with that finding; and the consequent order granting permission to sue in forma pauperis. 4. As regards the other point also it is well-settled that when a Shebait is unwilling or incapable of bringing a suit, such suit can be instituted by any person interested and the deity itself can sue through a next friend. 4. As regards the other point also it is well-settled that when a Shebait is unwilling or incapable of bringing a suit, such suit can be instituted by any person interested and the deity itself can sue through a next friend. In the present case the authority of the Shebait to transfer the land belonging to the idol is under challenge, and it is more than obvious that the Shebait is unwilling or incapable of bringing a suit of the present nature. It is, therefore, permissible for others acting as next friend to bring such a suit and it is not necessary that they must ask the Shebait to institute such a suit before the next friend files it. Similarly, there is no force in the contention that such a next friend must be appointed as the next friend by the Court before he can institute a suit on behalf of the idol. No provision of law was shown in support of it, rather the provisions in this respect in the Civil Procedure Code do not make such a course necessary. It is a different matter that the defendants can question the suitability of the next friend after the suit is instituted and then the Court will have to decide that point, but that is no authority for the proposition that a next friend must be appointed by the Court before the suit can be instituted by him. This point was dealt with in Sri Annapurna Debi v. Shiva Sundari, AIR 1945 Cal 376 at some length, and I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge in that case. The case reported in Kalimata Debi v. Narendra Nath, 99 Ind Cas 917 : (AIR 1927 Cal 244) which was relied upon on the side of the petitioners also does not support their contention. What was stated in that case was that the Shebait alone can maintain a suit on behalf of an idol except perhaps in a case where the Shebait has refused to institute a suit. The observations in Sri Sri Sridhar Jew v. Manindra K. Mitter, AIR 1941 Cal 272 were also to the same effect, namely, that when the interests of the Shebait are adverse to that of the idol then the idol should be represented through a disinterested next friend. The observations in Sri Sri Sridhar Jew v. Manindra K. Mitter, AIR 1941 Cal 272 were also to the same effect, namely, that when the interests of the Shebait are adverse to that of the idol then the idol should be represented through a disinterested next friend. It will be thus clear that in a case like the present one it is permissible for a person who is not the Shebait to bring such a suit. 5. In the course of arguments reference was also made to two P.C. cases reported in Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradhyumna Kumar Mullick. AIR 1925 PC 139 and Kanhaiya Lal v. Hamid Ali, AIR 1933 PC 198 (1), but as pointed out in AIR 1945 Cal 376, the point for decision in those cases was not the same as in the present case. It must therefore be found that it was permissible for the present next friend to institute the suit out of which this revision petition arose. 6. The result is that this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.