JUDGMENT George Knox and Karamat Husain, JJ. - This application is for revision of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur. The Subordinate Judge had before him an application on the part of the petitioner seeking to be permitted to sue in forma pauperis The Subordinate Judge, as we find from the record, fixed a day for receiving whatever evidence the applicant might adduce in proof of his pauperism. He examined the applicant, and it was not shown to us that any evidence tendered by the petitioner was rejected by the court unheard. After examining the petitioner, the court wrote as follows:-- The applicant has on his own showing the equity of redemption, and there is nothing to show that he cannot obtain money on its security. I believe he is not a pauper and dismiss the application with costs. 2. The suit which the petitioner desired to institute was a suit asking for redemption of the whole of a certain property set out in the schedule attached to the plaint. On behalf of the petitioner we are referred to the case of Vedanta Desikacharyulu v. Perindevamma (1881) I.L.R., 3 Mad., 249, and we were asked to hold that a person praying for the relief which the plaintiff sought, should not be refused permission to sue in forma pauperis and to be left to raise funds by mortgaging his claims. It has, however, been pointed out to us by the other side, and we accept the contention, that the petitioner in trying to raise money upon the equity of redemption would not in effect be mortgaging his claim. The equity of redemption in many cases is property of far greater value than the mortgage which the person instituting the suit may be seeking to redeem. If any obscurity remains in the present case it is the fault of the plaintiff that he did not remove that obscurity. There is no right existing to sue in forma pauperis. It is an exemption from the ordinary rule which he claims from the court and the burden of proving the exemption lies upon the person who claims the exemption. We are not satisfied that the court was in error when it held that the petitioner had not proved his pauperism. As he had not proved his pauperism the court was within its jurisdiction in refusing permission. We are not satisfied that the court was in error when it held that the petitioner had not proved his pauperism. As he had not proved his pauperism the court was within its jurisdiction in refusing permission. We dismiss the application with costs.