K.L. Bapna, J.
1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Baran, dated 29-4-1952.
2. The petitioner wanted to institute a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000 under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act against Moolchand and three other respondents in connection with the death of his wife Smt. Parbati Bai and for that purpose made an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The death of Smt. Parbati Bai took place on 26-8-1950 as a result of her being injured by a Truck No. 515 on 20-7-1950. The first three defendants were said to be the owners of that truck and the defendant No. 4 was the driver at the time. The application was made on 27-8-1951. The defendants contested the application but the learned Civil Judge, on facts found that the petitioner was unable to pay the court-fee for the claim of Rs. 10,000, which he had made. He, however, rejected the application on the ground that the claim was not framed in the manner permitted by Law. Under Section 2 of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act not more than one action or suit canbe brought in respect of the same subject-matter of complaint. Under Section 1 the suit has to be brought in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased. Section 3 lays down that the plaint shall give a full particular of the person or persons for whom, or on whose behalf, such action or suit is brought. Clause (2) of Section 1 says that every such action shall be brought for the benefit of wife, husband, parent or child, and if the Court is pleased to grant damages they may be proportioned among the aforesaid persons according to the loss resulting to each of them by the death ofthe deceased.
3. It is, therefore, clear that every one of the persons entitled to the benefit of damages has to be mentioned in the plaint for no separate action can be brought by any one of them later on.
4. In the present case the particulars of the persons for whose benefit the suit could be brought were not mentioned in the plaint. It was admitted by the petitioner that the deceased had a son and also a daughter. The name of the son has been mentioned in the plaint for the purpose of aggravating the loss but it was not stated that he was also entitled to a portion of the damages and the suit was for his benefit as well. As regards daughter of the deceased she was not at all mentioned. The Calcutta High Court has held in 'Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Khanta Kumari Banik', AIR 1934 Cal 632 (A) and 'Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Hira Lal De', AIR 1934 Cal 712 (B) that an application in forma pauperis should be rejected if the plaint does not contain the particulars of all the persons for whose benefit the suit was to be brought.
5. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Jeet Kumari Poddar v. Chittagong Engineering and Electric Supply Co. Ltd., AIR 1947 Cal 195 (C). That was a case of appeal in which the father of the deceased was not mentioned as one of the persons for whose benefit the suit was brought. On the merits it was found that he was in an affluent position and was not interested in the claim for damages. The Court observed that the defect pointed out might have been fatal at the earlier stage of the suit but would not be enough for non-suiting the plaintiffs at the appellate, stage. This authority does not help the petitioner. In view of the fact that the application has been found to be defective the order passed by the lower Court iscorrect.
6. This revision fails. There will be no order as to costs.