P L D 1967 Dacca 519 (PLP)

S. M. MURSHED, C. J.‑This revisional application arises out of the following circumstances: The petitioner instituted a suit for partition and recovery of possession thereof. The suit was instituted in forma pauperis and during the investigation as to the pauperism of the, plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur, who tried the issue, dismissed the application on contest. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court and obtained the present Rule nisi. At the hearing of the Rule Mr. Abdul Malek, learned Advo cate for the petitioner, has argued that the learned Subordinate Judge has not applied his mind at all to the requirements of the law in order to find whether the petitioner is a man of sufficient means so as to enable him to pay the prescribed court‑fees which, in this case, will be an amount of about Rs. 1,245. It is curious to note that although the suit by the petitioner is contested on the ground that the petitioner is an illegitimate son of the person from whom he had claimed an inheritance, the learned Judge has allowed him the benefit of four huts without adverting to the question whether he had obtained all the four huts or not and has accepted the ad‑hoc valuation given by the defendant, namely, a sum of Rs. 1,000. He furthermore proceeds to find against the petitioner some transactions regarding cattle on the evidence given by the defendant who had opposed the petitioner. Lastly, the learned Subordinate Judge has relied upon what he described as a report from the Govern ment Pleader in favour of the opposite‑party, which, according to him, would go to show that the petitioner is not a pauper. We are surprised that such a finding could be recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge. From the records of this case all that appears is, that a petition was addressed to the Court and described as a report which, in fact, was nothing but a prayer by the learned Government Pleader to be heard at the time of investigation as to the pauperism of the plaintiff. It does not appear that the trial Court gave any such opportunity to the Government Pleader to prove independently that the petitioner is not a pauper or whether such opportunity was at all sought by the Government. What we have stated above is enough to show that the trial Court has seriously misdirected itself in disposing of the petitioner's application to institute the suit in forma pauperis. In conclusion, we would like to observe that in the enquiry as to whether the petitioner is a person of sufficient means to enable him to pay the prescribed court‑fees, the Court has to take into consideration that the petitioner as a human being has to keep his body and soul together and is entitled to spend an amount of money which is normal for a person of the petitioner's status. The process by which the learned Subordinate Judge has arrived at his finding smacks of a rule of thumb and by a simple addition of figures supplied, he has come to the conclu sion that the result would be more than the fee required. This is, to say the least, a peculiar way of compliance with the requirement of law in this behalf and is contrary to the rule laid down by this Court, in the case of Mst. Mahmuda Kharun v. Md. Habibur Rahman (14 P L R Dacca 1101), that the test whether a person is pauper or not is dependent on the answer to the question, "Has the applicant sufficient means to pay the necessary court‑fees?" For reasons stated above, we make the Rule absolute and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Subordi nate Judge. It is directed that this case be sent back to the trial Court on remand for proper and due investigation as to whether the petitioner is a pauper in the sense that he is not in posses sion of sufficient means to enable him to pay the requisite court‑fee in accordance with law and consonant to the observa tions that we have made above. We make no order as to costs of this Rule. Let the records of this case be sent to the trial Court with due expedition. ABU MD. ABDULLAH, J.‑I agree. K. B. A. Rule made absolute.