The petitioner in Indigent O.P. No. 1 of 1994, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Vakkom is the revision petitioner. The court below rejected the Indigent O.P. on the ground that as on the date of the petition, the suit is barred by limitation.

2. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.15,000 as damages in the plaint. It is alleged that the respondents attacked the petitioner with dangerous weapons on 10-5-1985 and caused grievous injuries. The petitioner was taken to the hospital and after the treatment for 41 days, he was discharged from the hospital on 20-6-1985. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the respondents in C.C.No.344 of 1985. The criminal court found the respondents guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment. On appeal by the respondents, the Appellate Court acquitted respondents 3 to 7 and a lesser sentence was imposed on respondents 1 and 2. The High Court confirmed the decision of the Appellate Court in revision. The sentence was executed on 8-10-1993. The present suit is sought to be filed as an indigent person claiming damages of Rs.15,000 from the respondents in respect of the incident involved in the criminal case. It is stated in the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose on 10-5-1985, 31-12-1988, 1-3-1991, 11-8-1992 and 8-10-1993, the dates being respectively the date of occurrence, date of the trial court judgment, the date of the appellate judgment, date of disposal of the criminal revision petition by the High Court and the date of execution of the sentence.

3. The court below held that the petitioner has no means to pay the court fee. However, the court below held that the suit would be barred by limitation as the cause of action arose on 10-5-1985 and the Indigent O.P. was filed only on 11-2-1994. The court below held that Article 113 of the Limitation Act applies and the period of limitation is three years from the date on which the right to sue accrues. The court below rejected the contention of the petitioner that the right to sue accrued only on 8-10-1993, the date of execution of the sentence. The court below also rejected the alternative contention that the right to sue accrued only on 11-8-1992, the date of disposal of the criminal revision petition.

4. It is not disputed that Article 113 of the Limitation Act applies to the case and that the period of limitation is three years from the date when the right to sue accrued. It is also not disputed that the trial court is entitled to reject the application for permission to sue as an indigent person under Order XXXIII Rule 5 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the suit is barred by limitation as on the date of the filing of the Indigent O.P.

5. The counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that the period of limitation begins to run not from the date of occur vice but from the date of the final judgment by the High Court in criminal revision petition. The reason for this submission, according to him, is based on Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (omitting unnecessary portions) wads thus:

"357. Order to pay compensation.- (1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied

(a)** ** ** **

(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;

(c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal- Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855), entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;

(d) ** ** ** **

(2) If the fine is im