JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(na) of the CPC against an order rejecting an application of the Plaintiff for permission to sue as an indigent person. 2. During pendency of this appeal the applicant died and his legal representatives have been substituted to continue the appeal. The question therefore, arises whether the appeal has become infructuous on account of the death of the person praying for permitting him to sue as an indigent person since he is no more available to proceed with the suit and his indigency can not be taken advantage of by his legal representatives who are to prove their individual indigencies. 3. The suit commences on the date the application for permission is filed under Order 33, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. Supreme Court observed in the case reported in Vijay Pratap Singh Vs. Dukh Haran Nath Singh and Another, as follows: ...An application to sue in forma pauperis, is but a method prescribed by the Code for institution of a suit by a pauper without payment of fee prescribed by the Court Fees Act. If the claim made by the applicant that he is a pauper is not established the application may fail. But there is nothing personal in such an application. The suit commences from the moment an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis as required by Order 33 of the CPC is presented and Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC would be as much applicable in such a suit as in a suit in which court fee had been duly paid. It is true that a person who claims to join a Petitioner praying for leave to sue in forma pauperis must himself be a pauper. But his claim to join by transposition as an applicant must be investigated; it is not liable to be rejected on the ground that the claim made by the original applicant is personal to himself.... When the suit commences on the date the application for indigency is filed, the legal representatives have a right to continue the proceeding being substituted. In case they intend to continue the suit as indigent persons they are to make application showing their indigency and are not to depend upon the indigency of the deceased. When the suit commences on the date the application for indigency is filed, the legal representatives have a right to continue the proceeding being substituted. In case they intend to continue the suit as indigent persons they are to make application showing their indigency and are not to depend upon the indigency of the deceased. In case they feel that they would not be entitled to claim indigency, they may seek permission of the Court to pay the court-fee payable. However, on the death of the applicant, the proceeding automatically does not come to an end. In Santoksingh and Another Vs. Radheshyam and Another a situation arose whereafter the permission was given under Order 33, Code of Civil Procedure, and the suit was registered, the Plaintiff died. The question arose whether the legal representatives can continue the suit as indigent persons. It was held that indigency in such cases is to be examined afresh. If no application for continuing the suit as indigent persons would be filed, the applicants are to pay the court-fee, for which the Court can grant time in exercise of the power u/s 149, Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The impugned order show that the suit has not been dismissed. Office has been directed to calculate the court-fee. When the suit is pending, it is the duty of the legal representatives to get themselves substituted in the suit itself. Merely because this appeal is pending, they are not discharged from the statutory obligation since there is no provision exempting the legal representatives for discharge of such obligation. However, as has been held in the decision of this Court reported in Kali Charan Sadangi and Anr. v. Agadhu Bhoi and Ors. 29 (1963) C.L.T. 663, substitution at one stage of the proceeding will enure to the benefit at all stages. This decision also does not discharge the obligation. Only on account of equitable consideration, the substitution was held to be in the suit. The principle laid down by the Division Bench would also be applicable to this case. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, where during pendency of an application for indigency or an appeal against an order refusing permission to sue as indigent person the applicant died, the legal representatives can be brought on record. The principle laid down by the Division Bench would also be applicable to this case. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, where during pendency of an application for indigency or an appeal against an order refusing permission to sue as indigent person the applicant died, the legal representatives can be brought on record. In case it is appeal, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back for enquiry into the indigency of tube substituted legal representatives permitting them to file an application indicating the requirements of Order 33, Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose. In a case where the application for permission to continue the suit as an indigent person being allowed, the Plaintiff dies thereafter, fresh enquiry is to be made about the indigency of the legal representatives in case such legal representatives intend to continue the suit in that capacity or also the Court in the interest of justice is to grant some time to the legal representatives to pay the court-fee. 6. In the present case, permission to sue as indigent person not having been granted, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted back for decision of the trial Court afresh on the considerations indicated earlier. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed