SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed by the applicant-plaintiff against the order by XI A. D. J. , Indore on 12. 1. 1999 in civil Suit No. 147/90b whereby the applica-tion of the applicant for granting her exemption from payment of Court fee was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant filed civil suit for recovery of rs. 25. 000/ -. She pleaded that she had not any source of income and, therefore, she be exempted from, paying Court Tees under notification dated 1. 4. 83 The non-applicant/defendant resisted the application and pleaded that husband of the plaintiff was earning rs. 3. 000/- per month. She was running coaching class and was earning Rs. 5000-6000 per month. She had one house at Mahidpur. Her husband was a cloth commission agent and Manager in Pologround. Her son was a jeweller. The learned tnal Judge after appreciation of evidence held that her monthly in come including that of her husband and her son were more than Rs. 6,000/- and, there fore, she was not entitled to exemption under notification. Hence, this revision. ( 3 ) MR. M. I. Khan, LC. for the applicant, putting reliance on Govind Singh v. Omprakash, and Vimlabai w/o Ratanlalji betab v State of M. P and Others, submitted that the income of the husband and her son could not be clubbed. The Court has to see whether the applicant had annual income from all sources not exceeding Rs. 6,000/-, there fore, she had no income of her own. On the other hand, Mr. Ahiwasi, LC for non-applicant, supported the impugned order. ( 4 ) I considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for both sides and persued the record. In my opinion, the revision deserves to be allowed. The notification dated 1. 4. 1983 is quoted below : "in exercise of the powers conferred by section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (No. 7 of 1870), State Government. ( 4 ) I considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for both sides and persued the record. In my opinion, the revision deserves to be allowed. The notification dated 1. 4. 1983 is quoted below : "in exercise of the powers conferred by section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (No. 7 of 1870), State Government. hereby remits in the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court fees mentioned in Article 1-A and 2 of the first Schedule and Articles 5, 17 and 21 of the Second Schedule to the said act payable on plaint by the following categories of the persons whose annual income immediately preceding the date of presentation of plaint from all sources does not exceed rupees six thousand, namely- (i) member of Scehduled Tribes; (ii) member of Scehduled Castes; (iii) minors; (iv) women; (v) artisan; (vi) unskilled labourer; (vii) landless labourer; (viii) person belonging to the weaker section of the society. Explanation- For the purposes of this notification: (1) 'member of Scheduled Castes means a member of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within caste, race or tribe specified as such with respect to the State- of madhya Pradesh under Article 341 of the Constitution of India; (2) 'member of Scheduled Tribes' means a member of any tribal community or part of or group within a tribe or tribal community specified as such with respect to the state of Madhya Pradesh under article 342 of the Constitution of india. " from the plain reading of this notification, it is clear that the person belonging to the particular class as mentioned in notification, if his earning was less than Rs. 6,000/- per year, was exempted from paying Court fees on the plaint filed by him. The word "persons" does not mean the plaintiff and his family members. It means only the plaintiff who is a party and it cannot include any person who is not party to the suit. This Court in case of Vimlabai (supra)clearly held that the word "from all sources" could not mean income of any other person and for the purpose of this notification, the income of the family members of the applicant, cannot be clubbed. In this case, there was no evidence that the applicant was earning rs. 6,000/- per year. This Court in case of Vimlabai (supra)clearly held that the word "from all sources" could not mean income of any other person and for the purpose of this notification, the income of the family members of the applicant, cannot be clubbed. In this case, there was no evidence that the applicant was earning rs. 6,000/- per year. The learned trial judge committed error in taking into consideration the earning of her husband and her sons. In my opinion, the impugned order of the learned trial Court appears to be erroneous and incorrect. ( 5 ) THE revision is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside and it is held that the applicant-plaintiff is covered under the above notification and is exempted from paying Court fees. The revision petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Revision allowed. .