No interference with the order required in revision.

Defendants 1 to 8 are the petitioners in this civil revision petition against the order of the court below dated 3. 1994 allowing O.P.No.169 of 1990 on its file and thereby permitting the 1st respondent-plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. The suit is for declaration of plaintiffs title to the suit B schedule property and for possession of suit C schedule property, which is part of suit B schedule property.

2. The only submission made by. learned counsel for the petitioners is that the court below ought to have rejected the original petition under O.35, Rule 5(f). C.P.C. which runs as follows:

“The court shall reject an application for permis-sion to sue as an indigent person where the allegations made by the applicant in the application show that the suit would be barred by any law for the time being in force.”

According to the said learned counsel the suit would be barred by res judicata under Sec.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the earlier dismissal of the plaintiffs similar suit O.S.No.6360 of 1969, which ended in L.P.A.No.72 of 1981 on the file of this Court. Further according to him, the suit would be barred by limitation and the court below erred in holding that Art.65 of the Limitation Act would apply, According to him, the Article applicable is Art.58 or the residuary Art.113 of the Limitation Act.

3. First of all, it must be stated that this Court has consistently held that in all cases of granting leave to sue as an indigent person, the true principle is that it is primarily for the State to challenge the correctness of such orders as it is the State, which is mainly interested in the demand of the court fee and that the High Court will not normally interfere, in revision against such orders at the instance of the parties to the suit. (Vide: Kalimuthu Servai v. Govindaswami Servai,(1960)2 M.L.J. 313.A.I.R. 1961 Mad 71. In the present case, even as per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the State even remained ex parte in the court below, despite notice to it in the O.P. proceedings.

4. That apart even as per the abovesaid O.33, Rule 5(f), C.P.C. for deciding the question whether the court can reject the application for permission to sue as an indigent person, what are to be scanned by the court are the allegations in the application and the court, would not, at the stage of the said application, consider complicated questions of law, based on the counter-affidavit on behalf of the defendant or other evidence. (Vide: P.Asokan v. Western India Plywoods Limited, A.I.R. 1987 Ker. 103 (F.B.) and Govindasami Pillai v. Municipal Council, Kumbakonam, I.L.R. 41 Mad 620. Now in the present case, from the allegations in the plaint, which was filed along with the original petition, I am unable to see any such bar contemplated under the abovesaid O.33, Rule 5(f), C.P.C. Anyway, regarding the abovesaid contention that Sec.11, C.P.C. would be a bar, I straightaway point out that no such bar would exist in the present case since in the prior proceeding which ended in the abovesaid L.P. A., the observation of this Court is only as follows:

“It is well open to the appellant to work out his right on the basis of the patta, if he is so advised in separate proceedings.”

Therefore, prima facie there may not be any bar under Sec.11, C.P.C.

5. Then coming to the other question of limitation, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Art.65 of the Limitation Act would not apply as has been held by the court below and only Art.58 or the residuary Art.113 would apply. This contention also has no merit. Art.65 provides that for a suit for possession of immovable property based on title the period of limitation is 12 years from the date when possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Art.58 provides for a suit” to obtain any other declaration’ ‘that is, any declaration other than that relating to forgery spoken to in Art.56 and that relating to adoption spok