Bapna, J.—This a revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Baran, dated 29th April, 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 Svt. Parbati Bai and for that purpose made an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The death of Svt. Parbati Bai took place on 26th August, 1950 as a result of her being injured by a truck No. 515 on 20th July, 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 27th August, 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 sec. 2 of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act not more than one action or suit can be brought in respect of the same subject-matter of complaint. Under sec.1 the suit has to be brought in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased. Sec. 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 sec. 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 of the 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. 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, vs. Khanta Kumari Banik (2) and Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs. Hiralal De(2) 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 has to be brought. 5. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Svt. feet Kumari Poddar vs. Chittagong Engineering and Electric Supply Co. Ltd.(3). 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 is correct. 6. This revision fails. There will be no order as to costs.