JUDGMENT Mathur, J. - This is an execution First Appeal By Har Prasad defendant no. 1, now represented by his heirs, against the order dated 5-1-1963 of the Civil judge of Bijnor, ordering that the amount of court-fee payable by the plaintiff, Smt. Lali alias Umrawati, who was granted permission to sue in forma pauperis, be calculated, and such amount shall be recoverable by the State Government from defendant no. 1 as provided in order XXXIII, rule 10, C. P. C. 2. The order challenged in this appeal does not affect the interest of Smt. Tarawati, respondent No. 3, who has died during the pendency of the appeal. Persons concerned with the order are the plaintiff, defendant No. I and the State Government. Consequently, if any other party is not served or his legal representatives are not brought on the record, the appeal shall not abate. Hence the appeal can be taken up and decided on merits even though the legal representatives of Smt. Tarawati have not been brought on record and, formally speaking, the appeal abates as far as she is concerned. 3. Two points for consideration are whether the State Government is a necessary Party to the appeal and it deserves to be rejected on. the ground that, the State Government was not impleaded as a co-respondent. The second point raised is that the present appeal is not maintainable. 4. The two points are inter-connected and it shall be proper to first of all consider whether it was necessary for Har Prasad, defendant No. 1, to implead the State Government in this appeal. 5. Under Order XXXIII, Rule 12, C. P. C. the State Government has the right, at any time, to apply to the Court to make an order for the payment of court-fees under Rule 10, Rule 11 or Rule 11-A. Once the State Government makes the application, it becomes a necessary party not only to that proceeding but also to other proceedings arising therefrom. The same, however, cannot be said where the Court suo motu passes an order under one of these rules. 6. When a pauper institutes a suit, he impleads as defendants only such persons against whom he has some cause of action or claims some relief. The same, however, cannot be said where the Court suo motu passes an order under one of these rules. 6. When a pauper institutes a suit, he impleads as defendants only such persons against whom he has some cause of action or claims some relief. However, after entertaining the application to sue as pauper, it is necessary to give at least 10 clays' clear notice to the defendants and also to the Government Pleader for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his pauperism (vide Order XXXIII, Rule 6, C. P. C.) . Under Rule 9 an application for dispaupering the plaintiff can be made by the defendant or by the Government Pleader. The Government Pleader can be treated as the agent of the Collector or the State Government. The State Government is thus a party to the pauper proceeding. but cannot he deemed to be a party to the suit. This shall be clear from Rules 8 and 14 of Order XXXIII, C. P. C. also. 7. Rule 8 provides that where the pauper application is granted, it shall be numbered and registered and shall be deemed to be the plaint in the suit and the suit shall proceed in all other respects as a suit instituted in the ordinarly course. In a suit instituted in the ordinary course, it is not necessary to implead the State Government unless some relief is claimed against it. Hence after the pauper application is granted or is rejected, and the suit proceeds on payment of the necessary court-fee or otherwise the State Government is not a necessary or proper party to the suit. 8. Similarly, after an order has been made under Rule 10, 11 or 11-A it is mandatory for the court under Rule 14 to cause a copy of the decree or order to be forwarded to the Collector, who may recover the amount of court-fee as if it were an arrear of land revenue. In case the State Government was a necessary or proper party to the suit or to the passing of the order under Rule 10, 11 or II-A, it would not have been necessary to provide that a copy of the decree or order shall be forwarded to the Collector. In case the State Government was a necessary or proper party to the suit or to the passing of the order under Rule 10, 11 or II-A, it would not have been necessary to provide that a copy of the decree or order shall be forwarded to the Collector. Parties to the proceeding are deemed to be aware of the orders passed in such proceeding it is for them to ascertain the action taken and the order passed therein. 9. An order contemplated by Rule 10, 11 or 11-A of order XXXIII, C. P. C. ordinarily follows the result of suit and on this ground also it shall not be necessary to give notice to the State Government before passing an order by whom the amount of court-fee on the plaint shall be payable. When such an order can be passed without notice to the State Government, it can be challenged in appeal and modified, if necessary, without notice to the State Government. However, where the order under Order XXXIII, Rule 10, C. P. C. is made or modified at the instance of the State Government, it will become a necessary party. For example, if one of the defendants is rich and the other poor, and to avoid the liability of payment of the amount of court-fee to be affixed on the plaint, had the suit not been instituted in forma pauperis, and also to avoid the payment of the plaintiff's costs, the rich defendant may not himself put in appearance but finance the poor defendant to contest the suit. In such a case the Court being unaware of the true state of affairs would, on the suit being decreed, direct that the amount of court-fee shall be payable by the contesting defendant. In such circumstances, the State Government can move the Court for passing an order under Order XXXIII, Rule 10, C. P. C. or for modification of the order already passed. Where the order under Order XXXIII, Rule 10 is subsequently challenged by the State Government it would become a necessary party. 10. Order XXXIII, Rule 13 also leads to the same inference. It provides that all matters arising between the State Government and any party to the suit under Rule 10, 11, 11-A or 12 shall be deemed to be questions arising between the parties to the suit within the meaning of Section 47. 10. Order XXXIII, Rule 13 also leads to the same inference. It provides that all matters arising between the State Government and any party to the suit under Rule 10, 11, 11-A or 12 shall be deemed to be questions arising between the parties to the suit within the meaning of Section 47. The word "arising" is of significance and makes it clear that the matter must arise between the State Government and any party to the suit. Matters arise between two parties only when there exists some dispute. For so long as the State Government does not raise an objection to an order passed under Order XXXIII, Rule 10, C. P. C. there is, in substance, no dispute between the State Government and the defendant, and hence no matter arises between them. The wording of Order XXXIII, Rule 10, C. P. C. also leads to the same inference. This rule runs as below: "Where the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the court shall calculate the amount of court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper; such amount shall be recoverable by the State Government from any party ordered by the decree to pay the same, and shall be a first charge on the subject-matter of the suit." The words "by the decree" used in the second part of this rule strongly suggest that the order contemplated by this rule must be incorporated in the decree and the decree shall naturally be the one passed in the main suit. Consequently, where the Court suo motu, and not at the instance of the State Government, passes the order under Order XXXIII, Rule 10, C. P. C. it would be without notice to the State Government and such an order, when incorporated in the decree, can be challenged in appeal without impleading the State Government. 11. On consideration of the various provisions of Order XXXIII, C. P. C. it must be held that the State Government is not a necessary or proper party to the proceeding including appeal or revision contemplated by Rules 10, 11 and 11-A of Order XXXIII, C. P. C., unless the proceeding was initiated at the instance of the State Government under Rule 12 or the order already passed under one of these rules was modified on the application of the State Government. In the instant case, the Civil judge passed the order contemplated by Order XXXIII, Rule 10, C. P. C. suo motu, I am informed, the same day, the judgment was pronounced in the suit; hence the order directing the recovery of the amount of court-fee from defendant No. 1 could be challenged without impleading the State Government in the appeal. 12. The first part of Order XXXIII, Rule 10 casts a duty on the court to calculate the amount of court-fee, which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to site as a pauper. The second part of the rule merely provides that such amount shall be recoverable from any party ordered by the decree to pay the same. This provision does not contemplate a separate order under Rule 10. By whom the amount of court-fee is payable must be indicated in the decree itself, that is, in the decree passed in the suit. Consequently, where the Court omits to indicate in the decree, the party from whom the amount of court-fee shall be recoverable, a separate order can be passed suo motu or on the application of the State Government under Rule, 12. Where the order under Rule 10 has been passed on the application of the State Government, it can, on the basis of the wording of Rule 13, be said that it is an appealable order distinct from the decree passed in the suit. Had it not been provided in Rule 13 that all the matters arising between the State Government and any party to the suit, under one of the rules detailed therein, shall be deemed to be question arising between the parties to the suit within the meaning of Section 47, the order passed on the application of the Sate Government under Rule 12 would not have been appealable as such, though after the amendment of the decree, the order could be challenged in appeal against the decree passed in the main suit or against the amended decree. Order XLIII, C. P. C. makes no provision for an appeal against an order passed on the application of the State Government under Order XXXIII, Rule 12, C. P. C., nor has an appeal been provided against such an order under some other enactment. Order XLIII, C. P. C. makes no provision for an appeal against an order passed on the application of the State Government under Order XXXIII, Rule 12, C. P. C., nor has an appeal been provided against such an order under some other enactment. It is by virtue of Rule 13 that the order passed on the application under Rule 12 is deemed to be covered by Section 47, C. P. C. and hence appealable as from a decree. 13. If Rule 13 did not exist, the decree in the main suit would have been amended after the passing of the order on the application under Rule 12, in the same manner as the decree is amended after an application moved by the parties to the suit for the amendment of the decree has been decided. 14. In this connection a reference may again be made to Rule 14 where under after the making of an order under Rule 10, 11 or 11-A, the court has to send a copy of the decree or order to the Collector. Rules 11 and 11-A contemplate separate orders: an order which need not be incorporated in the decree, while Rule 10 speaks of decree. In fact, on the basis of the wording of Rule 10, it can be urged that unless the party from whom the amount of court-fee is recoverable is specified in the decree. no steps for recovery can be taken against the party. In case such a direction was, in the eye of law, an order, the word "decree" would not have been used in Rule 14. 15. To sum up, where the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, it must be specified in the decree itself from which party the State Government can recover the amount of court-fee which would have been paid by the plaintiff. if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper; and where the Court inadvertently omits to include such a direction in the decree, it can suo motu pass a separate order and thereafter amend the decree already passed. In such circumstances, the parties can appeal against the direction contemplated by the second Part of Order XXXIII. Rule 10, C. P. C. in the appeal already preferred against the decree or in a separate appeal against the amended decree. In such circumstances, the parties can appeal against the direction contemplated by the second Part of Order XXXIII. Rule 10, C. P. C. in the appeal already preferred against the decree or in a separate appeal against the amended decree. The same rule shall apply where the Court passes the order under Order XXXIII, Rule 10, C. P. C. and amends the decree on the omission being brought to its notice by the parties to the suit; but where the order under Order XXXIII. Rule 10 has been passed or modified on the application of the State Government, the State Government shall become a necessary party and the matter shall be one arising between the State Government and the party concerned, and hence it shall be an order contemplated by Section 47, C. P. C. and appealable as such. 16. In the instant case, after passing the impugned order, the decree in the main suit was not amended and instead a separate decree was passed. The decree shall be taken to be a formal order as is invariably prepared after the making of an appealable order. The separate decree so prepared shall not be proper compliance of the provisions of Order XXXIII, Rule 10, C. P. C. Even though it is headed as a decree, it shall be a mere formal order. Order XLIII makes no provision for an appeal against an order under Rule 10 of Order XXXIII. C. P. C. Hence no appeal against the formal order, that is, the impugned order shall be maintainable. though the order can be challenged in an appeal against the main decree after such decree has been suitably amended. 17. The present Execution First Appeal being not maintainable is hereby rejected, but it shall be open to the appellant to challenge the order in the appeal already filed against the decree passed in the main suit, or in a separate appeal against the amended decree after the decree passed in the main suit has been amended by the Court below suo motu or on the application of the parties to the suit. Costs easy.