This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners to call in question order dated 24-3-2000 passed by District Judge, Multan declaring the petitioners to be paupers was dismissed and the petitioners had been directed to supply court-fee of Rs.4,494 on the appeal.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that a suit for possession titled as Muhammad Suleman and others v. Lal Hussain and others was, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Multan which was decreed against the present petitioners. The petitioners challenged the impugned judgment and decree in the Appellate Court and on 11-3-1998 the respondents raised an objection that the proper court-fee has not been annexed with the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed for deficiency of court-fee. At the objection of the respondents the petitioners had filed an application on 16-3-1998 in the Court declaring the applicants to be paupers.
3. I have heard the Lal Hussain petitioner and counsel for the respondents.
4. The statement of the petitioners Lal Hussain has been recorded wherein he has stated that he is a retired pensioner and receiving pension of Rs.848 per month in these days and except this pension he has no other source of income, neither had any house except the house in dispute from which no income is derived. He stated that he is not serving as private employee.
5. A person is a "Pauper" when he is not possessed of sufficient means I to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or, where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject-matter of the suit. Rule 1 of Order XXXIII enables persons who are too poor to pay the prescribed court-fee to institute a suit- without payment of court-fee and similarly the Court may permit a regularly instituted suit to be continued in forma pauperis.
6. In the instant case as stated by the petitioner Lal Hussain he has no other source of income except his pension of Rs.848 p.m. Which is even not sufficient to continue the breath of life. The petitioners are husband and wife having do issue and are poor persons. The petitioners have no other property other than the house in dispute or the house-hold articles. They have no other source of income. From the statement of the petitioners it is suffice to hold that the petitioners have not sufficient means to pay the court-fee. Learned counsel for the respondents opposing the petition has not been able to show the source of income of the petitioners except the pension benefits. The pension amount of Rs.848 P.M. Is so meagre amount that it is very difficult to pull on with such amount. The needs of life are so numerous that the meagre pension amount is not sufficient to provide the same. The petitioners in order to supply the court-fee of Rs.4,494 would be constrained to retain this pension amount of more than S/6 months and if this amount is retained for court-fee then it will be very difficult for the petitioners to lead their lives because they will be unable to purchase the foods for their life. The payment of court-fee is not a matter between the litigants. It is a matter between the Government and the litigants. If the litigant is I unable to meet with the expenses of the litigation, he cannot be non-suited on the basis of his poverty. To deprive of a person from knocking the door of the Court on the ground of non-payment of court-fee is against the Injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah, therefore, the petitioners cannot be restrained from seeking the relief from the Court on the basis, of non-payment' of court-fee.