Civil Revision No. 818 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 818 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.02.2010 Jaswant Kaur and another ....Petitioners versus Khajan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. P.K. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.10.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide which the appeal filed by Bachan Singh (insane), was ordered to be dismissed. Bachan Singh had filed a suit for declaration, along with application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue as an indigent person. The application was dismissed. In appeal, Bachan Singh died. The petitioners moved an application for being brought on record as legal representatives of late Sh. Bachan Singh. The application was dismissed, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Subbia Vs. Sundara Boyamma, (1927) 54 M.L.J. 582, wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court held, that where a person dies during the pendency of his application for leave to sue in forma pauperis, his legal representatives are not entitled to continue further prosecution of the petition. The basis for this decision Civil Revision No. 818 of 2010 (O&M) -2- is, that an application to sue in forma pauperis is purely a personal relief, therefore, the legal representatives cannot be permitted to continue the proceeding in the Court. The Hon'ble Madras High Court observed, that the legal representatives can continue the suit on payment of requisite court fee. The right to sue, therefore, would also include a right to seek the permission to sue as forma pauperis by proving their own status. The learned appellate Court, therefore, rightly held that after the death of the appellant, it was no longer necessary to determine, as to whether the appellant was pauper or not. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as having abated. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, in view of the provisions of Order 33 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits the filing of second application by same person after dismissal of first application. This contention is totally misconceived. Once, a person is dead, he can hardly move the second application as forma pauperis. Under the provisions of Order 33 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no person can claim to be impleaded as legal representative of deceased-appellant. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 08, 2010 R.S.