Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no instructions from the respondents probably for the reason that they do not want to keep him their counsel. This is no ground for allowing revocation of the Power of Attorney of the learned counsel nor a ground for holding that the respondents are not duly represented.
2. This is a revision petition against an order dated the 26th April, 1972, directing the petitioner to deposit court-fee after dismissing his application for permission to sue in forma pauperis.
3. The only ground dismissing that application is that the Collector, in his report dated the 24th June, 1971, had recommended that he should not be declared to be a pauper. This is no ground for dismissing the said application[ Rule 7 of Order XXXIII, C. P. C. Provides in sub-rule (1 for examination of the witnesses of the petitioner. The learned Court has not followed this procedure which is mandatory. It has acted illegally and with material irregularity by ignoring this provision.
4. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the order of the learned trial Court is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to decide the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis, in accordance with law.
' It appears that respondent No, 2 had not contested the matter on the date when the impugned order was passed. Respondent No, 1 only shall therefore pay the costs of the petitioner.