' This revision Petition by the defendants calls in question propriety of the order, dated 4-4-1987 passed by Ch. Riaz Mahmood, Civil Judge, Lahore to uphold the plea of pauperism raised by Mst.
Ijaz Fatima by means of a petition brought by her on 16-5-1981 under Order XXXIII, rule 1 of the C.P.C., to be able to claim recovery of her dowry articles and, in the alternative, their value amounting to Rs,2,74,765. It so happened that Mst. Ijaz Fatima died on 28-6-1983 and her petition was continued by her father and mother (the two respondents herein) under the claim of being her legal representatives, on the basis of amended application, dated 13-5-1984 and after recording the necessary evidence and receiving the Collector's report about Mst. Ijaz Fatima, the trial Judge proceeded to declare her a pauper, in complete oblivion of the event of her death taking place in the meanwhile, as was borne out from the record itself.
2. It is urged that the plea for grant of permission to sue as a pauper was not capable of Surviving to the legal heirs after the death of Mst ljaz Fatima because it is a personal status which cannot possibly devolve upon any other person for securing an order under Rule 8 of Order XXXIII of the C.P.C. To have the petition registered as a plaint in his own name. Manifestly enough, there was no plea as such maintained by the respondents ever in their own names and the applicant Mst. Ijaz Fatima had died almost four years before the passing of the order of the trial Court and, as such, there did not exist any person either claiming to be or becoming liable to be declared a pauper, therefore, the trial Court's order, dated 4-4-1987 was neither here nor there because it did not have the power to act only in the air to the benefit of the respondent-heirs of the deceased applicant Mst. Ljaz Fatima. Even the provision made in clause (e) of Rule 5 of Order XXXIII of the C.P.C. Is indicative of the object that the plea of pauperism of one person will not be capable of bein used to the interest of another one.
3. The limited dispute raised herein squarely poses the question also as to whether the respondents, who admittedly 'are the heirs of Mst. Ijaz Fatima, being her father and mother; may also be her legal representatives to be eligible to join in her stead, in consequence of her death, in the proceeding brought by her? Section 2(11) of the C.P.C., defines a 'legal representative' as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person. Clearly enough, where a deceased has not left behind any estate at all to be capable of being represented by. Another person, there will not come into existence any legal representative. Obviously, there has to be something capable of being called the estate to devolve upon another person for investing in him the status of a legal-representative but where a deceased, on his own showing, has got only poverty to leave behind there will not conceivably be anything capable of being represented by any one else because something and not merely nothing can vest in another. Property but not poverty of a deceased can be heritable inasmuch as it is only a personal attribute, incapable of devolving as such upon any other person and has to end up with the deceased who in such a situation can leave behind only legal heirs under the law which governed him but not any one eligible to be called his legal representative. When Mst. Ijaz Fatima died, her demand for return of dowry articles or the money value thereof was only inchoate and in the process of maturing into a suit but had not actually become a claim in some suit, which character it would have assumed only if she may have either been permitted in her lifetime to sue as a pauper under Rule 7 thereof, or else, she had paid the requisite Court-fee and since neither of these two eventualities happened before her death. Therefore, the petition brought by her simply lapsed on account of its legal death alongwith her. After her death there was not left anything for her legal heirs to continue in her place. Of course, the respondents, as the legal heirs of Mst. Ijaz Fatima, could maintain a suit in their own rights as such but they could not, merely in her stead, pursue her application to sue in forma pauperism.
4. Order so passed as above by the trial Court is not sustainable in law and the same is accordingly set aside upon accepting this revision petition and the relevant application of Mst. Ijaz Fatima is ordered to be dismissed on account of her death. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs hereof.