ORDER :- This is a revision petition against the order of the Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur, rejecting the application of Shri Radha Krishna Devata, an idol installed in the temple of Sri Radha Krishna Thakurbari, Paona Bazar, through Sri Purnanand Sarma, Shebait of the said idol to file a suit in forma pauperis. It is stated in the plaint that the deity possessed besides the temple with its Mandop and the Compound attached to it, 5 shop buildings, of which 4 were let out by the first defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-and the 5th shop was in the possession of the first defendant. It was alleged that in 1955, the Shebait, Purnanand Sarma, constituted a committee temporarily for management with defendant No. 1 as Secretary-cum-treasurer, but that the said Committee was dissolved by the said Shebait within two months thereafter, and that in spite of the dissolution, defendant No. 1 continued to make the collection of rents. It was further alleged that in July, 1958, defendants 1 and 6 to 22 constituted themselves into a committee under the name and Style of Sri Sri Radha Krishna Mandir Karvakarini Prabandha Committee, without the permission of the Shebait and that they have been collecting the rents from the four shops and occupying the 5th shop as the Office of the Committee. The suit is sought to be filed for rendering an account of the income collected by defendant No. 1 from 1955 and it is tentatively valued at Rs. 30,000/-. An injunction is also prayed for restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 6 to 22 from realising the rents from the 4 shops in the occupation of defendants 2 to 5. A decree for possession of the 5th shop is also prayed for besides mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 1,690/-. It is stated in the schedule that the deity is possessed of only certain articles like clothing, utensils, ornaments, electric goods etc., of a total value of Rs. 295/-and hence permission was prayed for on behalf of the deity to sue as a pauper. 2. 1,690/-. It is stated in the schedule that the deity is possessed of only certain articles like clothing, utensils, ornaments, electric goods etc., of a total value of Rs. 295/-and hence permission was prayed for on behalf of the deity to sue as a pauper. 2. This was opposed by the contesting defendants on two grounds : (1) that under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. the plaintiff who is a deity cannot be permitted to file a suit as a pauper and (2) that even if the deity can be permitted, the deity is possessed of moveable and immoveable property worth Rs. 3 to 3½ lakhs and hence it is possessed of sufficient means to enable it to pay the Court fee of Rs. 1,500/- and odd, prescribed for the suit. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the deity is a juridical person and as such entitled to apply under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. to sue as a pauper. But he held that the deity was possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee and hence the application was rejected. 4. In this revision, the petitioner contested the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the deity was possessed of sufficient means. The respondents, however, contested the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the deity was a person who could be permitted to sue as a pauper under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. The respondents also maintained that the deity was possessed of sufficient means. A third contention which was pressed was that the petition was lacking in bona fides and that the suit though purporting to be filed by the deity was, in fact, filed by Purnanand Sarma, himself, to establish that he was the Shebait of the deity in order to get control of the properties of the deity from the Committee consisting of defendants 1 and 6 to 22 and further that Purnanand Sarma as the Pujari of the deity was living in a residential house belonging to the deity and was in possession of lots of moveable properties belonging to the deity worth Rs. 7,000/- in addition to the large amount which he realised by way of offerings to the deity and that all these facts have been suppressed in the Schedule to the plaint, detailing the properties of the deity and it was prayed that the petition should fail under Order 33 Rule 5 (a) of C. P. C. 5. I think this petition can be disposed of on the first question, namely, whether the deity is a person who can file a suit in forma pauperis under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. is as follows : "1. Subject to the following provisions any suit may be instituted by a pauper. Explanation - A person is a "pauper" when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in, such suit, or where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing-apparel and the subject-matter of the suit". Now a suit of a civil nature can be filed in Civil Courts by any juridical person and it is well-established that a deity is a juridical person. But the question is whether all such juridical persons, who can file suits, can also be allowed to show that they are paupers within the meaning of Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. and to ask for permission to sue as paupers. Reliance was placed on the definition of the term "person" in Section 3 (42) of the Central General Clauses Act, which stated that "person" included any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Even this definition does not include a deity. But it was pointed out that the definition was not exhaustive and that as the deity is admitted to be a juridical person, it can be permitted to apply under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. Thus, what we have got to see is whether there is anything repugnant in the subject or context in the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C., which would prohibit a deity to be a person, who can show that it is a pauper. Now reading the explanation to Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C., a person is a "pauper" when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law in a suit and where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his wearing-apparel and the subject-matter of the suit. In our case, the fee is prescribed by law and hence it is the earlier part of the explanation which would apply. But in deciding the meaning of the term "a person", we have to take the explanation as a whole. In the latter part of the explanation, the words "other than his necessary wearing-apparel and the subject-matter of the suit" are significant as showing that the term "person" has reference to only a natural person or a human being and not to a juridical person, like a deity, who cannot possess any necessary wearing-apparel. 6. Again, reading Order 33 Rule 3 we find that an application to sue as a pauper shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person, unless he is exempted from appearing in Court, in which case the application may be presented by an authorised agent, who may be examined in the same manner as the party represented by him might have been examined, had such party attended in person. It is not possible for a deity to appear in person in Court. Nor is it possible for the deity to have an authorised agent as the deity is not in a position to authorise another person to appear for it. On the other hand, the deity itself can file the suit only through a shebait or a trustee, but the shebait or the trustee is not authorised by the deity. When we turn to R. 4(1) of Order 33 C. P. C., it provides for the Court examining the applicant or his agent when the applicant is allowed to appear by agent. In the case of a deity, it is not possible for the Court to examine the applicant. Further, Rule 4 (2) provides that when the application is presented by an agent, the Court may order that the applicant may be examined by a commission in the manner in which the examination of an absent witness may be taken. In the case of a deity, it is not possible for the Court to examine the applicant. Further, Rule 4 (2) provides that when the application is presented by an agent, the Court may order that the applicant may be examined by a commission in the manner in which the examination of an absent witness may be taken. It is not possible in the case of a deity for the Court to examine the applicant by a commission. Thus, it is clear that the framers of Order 33 C. P. C. intended that the term "person" in Order 33 Rule 1 explanation was intended to apply only to a natural person or a human being filing a suit and not to a juridical person like a deity filing suit through a Shebait or trustee. 7. This is the view taken in the decision Associated Pictures Ltd. v. National Studios Ltd., AIR 1951 Punj 447. In that case, the suit was brought by a company in voluntary liquidation through a liquidator and the question was whether a company will come within the term "person" in Order 33 Rule 1 Explanation and it was held that it was difficult to interpret the word "person" as used in Order 33 Rule 1 Explanation, other than in its ordinary sense of individual and in coming to that conclusion, Rules 3 and 4 of Order 33 which I dealt with just now were also taken into consideration. The decision of the Punjab High Court has taken into consideration the decisions of various other High Courts both for and against the view and has accepted the decisions which were against the view that a juridical person can be included within the term "person". 8. There is of course a conflict of decisions in the various High Courts on this question. But it seems to me that we have to take the obvious interpretation of the word "person" in O. 33 and cannot attempt to extend the meaning, as has been done by various High Courts. If it is intended that the term "person" should be made to apply to juridical persons, then Order 33 will have to be amended in order to include such persons also and unless it is so done it is not possible to accept that a deity can be allowed to bring a suit as a pauper. If it is intended that the term "person" should be made to apply to juridical persons, then Order 33 will have to be amended in order to include such persons also and unless it is so done it is not possible to accept that a deity can be allowed to bring a suit as a pauper. The normal rule is that court-fee has to be affixed to the plaint before it is taken to file. Order 33 is a concession to certain persons who are not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee. Such concessions have to be literally interpreted and if the provisions of Order 33 make it clear that it can apply only to certain persons, who are in a position to appear in Court either by themselves or through authorised agents and who are capable of being examined in Court, or on commission, we cannot extend the interpretation so as to include person who will not come within that category. 9. The decision of the Mysore High Court M. C. Chikknanjundappa v. D. K. Pillanna, AIR 1955 Mys 128, was cited before me in that connection, which has held that the term "person" includes a juridical person. The said decision refers to certain decisions of the Madras High Court which have taken the same view. One of the said decisions was Perumal Goundan v. Thirumalarayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1918 Mad 362 which was also a case dealing with a Company in liquidation represented by an official liquidator. In dealing with Rules 1 and 3 of Order 33, it was held in the said decision that Rule 1, Explanation can only mean that if the applicant has necessary wearing-apparel he can deduct its value and cannot be construed to mean that only persons who, in law, can possess wearing-apparel, can sue as paupers, and further that Rule 3 only prohibits a pauper, who is competent in law to appear in person from taking advantage of Rule 1 of Order 33 C. P. C. and appearing by a pleader or recognised agent instead of being present personally and that it does not cover cases where from the nature of the case physical presence is impossible or where the law owing to any disability directs that all acts required by the Code should be performed by a next friend. I find nothing in Order 33 Rules 1, 3 and 4 which would permit of such an interpretation that in case a person cannot possess the necessary wearing-apparel or is incapable of appearance in Court personally or through an agent, and incapable of being examined on commission, if necessary, he can still apply to sue as a pauper and only show that he has not got sufficient means to pay the court-fee. In fact, it is to enable the Court to be satisfied about the sufficient means and about the bona fides of the applicant that the personal attendance is insisted on. All the indications are that only natural persons are to have the concession given under Order 33 C. P. C. The decision AIR 1955 Mys 128, dealt with a case where persons sued in a representative character as the executors of a Will and the question was whether the executors can institute proceedings as paupers for the recovery of the estate and whether in such a case whether it is the pauperism of the estate or that of the executors personally which should be taken into account. We are not here concerned with a representative suit and the question is whether the deity in the present case can file such a suit in forma pauperis. 10. Another decision Syed Ali v. Deccan Commercial Bank Ltd., AIR 1951 Hyd 124, dealt with the question whether a company which had gone into liquidation could file a suit as pauper through its liquidator. This was the same question considered in the decision AIR 1951 Punj 447. The Hyderabad High Court took the view that the company can sue as a pauper and in saying 60 they relied on the definition of the word "person" in Section 3 (42) which was then Section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act. But the Hyderabad decision did not deal with the various provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 before coming to its conclusion as the Punjab decision did. 11. In the decision Shankarji Maharaj v. Mt. But the Hyderabad decision did not deal with the various provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 before coming to its conclusion as the Punjab decision did. 11. In the decision Shankarji Maharaj v. Mt. Godavaribai, AIR 1935 Nag 209, which was a case of certain idols filing a suit in forma pauperis through their Shebait, the Nagpur Judicial Commissioners Court held that the word "person" in Order 33 Rule 1 Explanation has reference to all those who have a right to institute a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure and that Order 33 would apply to all prospective plaintiffs or persons in whom any right to relief existed within the meaning of Order 1 Rule 1 C. P. C. This is the only direct decision cited before me regarding an idol. But for reasons already stated, I am not in a position to follow the said decision. 12. If the Legislature intended to allow all persons who have a right to institute a suit under the C. P. C. to apply to sue in forma pauperis the said intention will have be to made clear by amendment of Rules 1, 3 and 4 of Order 33. It will have to be made clear that in the case of juridical persons (other than natural persons) who. have to sue through another person like a Shebait or a trustee or a liquidator, it would be sufficient if the attendance of the person through whom the juridical person sues would be sufficient in Court. The difficulty in such cases is that the question whether the juridical person has sufficient means to pay the court-fee or has got property worth Rs. 100/ - besides the wearing-apparel and the subject-matter of the suit, will have to be decided on the evidence of the person through whom the juridical person sues and hence the information about the means and the property can be obtained only at second hand. Perhaps, that is the reason why Order 33 restricts the suits as paupers to persons whose presence in Court or on commission could be obtained by the Court to know at first hand about his capacity to pay the court-fee or the existence of property worth Rs. 100/-. Again, the question of bona fides will come into the picture. Perhaps, that is the reason why Order 33 restricts the suits as paupers to persons whose presence in Court or on commission could be obtained by the Court to know at first hand about his capacity to pay the court-fee or the existence of property worth Rs. 100/-. Again, the question of bona fides will come into the picture. It is not the bona fides of the juridical persons that will have to be seen, but of the person through whom the suit is brought. It is well-established that a person who wants to sue as a pauper must come with clean hands and his bona fides must be unquestionable. In the case of a juridical person (other than a natural person), suing through a representative, the Court can know only about the bona fides of the representative. 13. Taking the present case before me, the respondents through the evidence of witnesses pointed out various moveable properties as belonging to the idol. But the Shebait through whom the idol has filed the suit claimed all those properties to be the properties of the Shebait himself, thereby trying to make out that the idol did not possess any of those properties. The result will be that the idol by such plea may by the claim of the Shebait stand to lose all those properties. Similar situations will arise in all such cases where a juridical person (other than a natural person) files a suit through a representative. Perhaps, it is for such reasons that the concession under Order 33 is so worded, that only natural persons can take advantage of it. Unless Rules 1, 3 and 4 of Order 33 are amended by the Legislature, it is not possible to hold on the existing Rules that a deity or an idol could file a suit through a Shebait in forma pauperis. I am not therefore, prepared to accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this point. The revision petition must fail on this finding alone. 14. Even on the merits as to whether the deity has got sufficient means to pay the court-fee of Rs. 1,500/- and odd, the respondents have let in evidence to show that the deity is possessed of properties worth Rs. The revision petition must fail on this finding alone. 14. Even on the merits as to whether the deity has got sufficient means to pay the court-fee of Rs. 1,500/- and odd, the respondents have let in evidence to show that the deity is possessed of properties worth Rs. Three lakhs and that even the residence of the Shebait, which also belongs to the deity and which is not the subject-matter of the suit, would be worth Rs. 50,000/-. The answer of the Shebait to this evidence was that the residence in which the Shebait lives is his private property. Similarly, the respondents let in evidence of various moveable properties of the deity which are in the possession of the Shebait. The answer of the Shebait to this was again that all the said properties belong to the Shebait personally and not to the deity. I may also mention here that the respondents have contended in the suit that this Purnanand Sarma who has filed the suit as Shebait is only the Pujari of the deity and that the management of the properties of the deity is vested in a committee consisting of defendants 1 and 6 to 22. Purnanand Sarma himself admitted as P. W. 1 that he filed a suit in the Munsiffs Court as T. S. No. 58 of 1960 to establish his Shebaitship and that the said suit was dismissed. The present suit though instituted by the deity through this Purnanand Sarma as Shebait is again for the same relief, namely, for Purnanand Sarma as Shebait to get possession of the properties and the funds of the deity, which amounts to the same relief in another form. It is not necessary for me to decide in this petition whether such a suit will be barred by res judicata or not. But the question may very well arise whether a suit like the present would be hit by Section 92 C. P. C. In any case, the stand taken by Purnanand Sarma as Shebait that all the moveable properties pointed out by the respondents as belonging to the deity as well as the residential house which is also seen to be situated in the land which is registered in the name of the deity belong to the Shebait personally, appears to be lacking in bona fides. There would even appear to be a conflict of interest as between the idol and the Shebait himself. The attempt on the part of Purnanand Sarma appears to be to set up the deity as a pauper for the purpose of benefiting himself. This cannot be permitted. Under such circumstances this is not a case where the deity can be allowed to sue as a pauper. If Purnanand Sarma wants to file such a suit, as Shebait of the deity, to establish his own rights to be in possession of the properties and funds of the deity, a suit brought by him in the name of the deity cannot be permitted to be filed in forma pauperis. This revision petition fails and it is, therefore, dismissed with the costs of the respondents. The costs will be paid by the Shebait Purnanand Sarma. Petition dismissed.