Law:

Section:

This revision petition arises out of a suit for damages (in forma pauperis) filed by the petitioner on 30th March, 1977 under the Fatal Accidents Act of 1855, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Faisalabad. The petitioner's application for permission to sue in. forma pauperis was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 22nd March, 1978 . Hence this revision petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the trial Court acted with material irregularity in holding that the petitioner was not a pauper. He submitted that the petitioner did not own any property and the property, if any, owned by her husband, could not be taken into consideration to non-suit the petitioner. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, who appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 frankly conceded that according to his instructions, . the petitioner did not own any property and was a pauper within the meaning of law. However, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 opposed the petition on the ground that the property of the husband, who was one of the beneficiaries in respect of the claim made in the suit, could be taken into account for holding the petitioner to be solvent for the purpose of payment of court-fee.

 3. in a suit filed in forma pauperis the means and resources of the plaintiff alone have to be considered to judge sufficiency of his or her means to pay the A court-fee, prescribed under the law. The explanation under Order 33, rule 1 of the C.P.C. defines a pauper as under:--