This revision petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore granting leave to the first respondent to sue as a pauper. Three questions were raised before the learned Subordinate Judge by the contesting respondents: (1) Whether the applicant was a pauper; (2) whether the allegations in the application show a cause of action; (3) whether the suit is barred by law. On all the three points the learned Judge found in favour of the applicant and granted leave. So far as points 1 and 2 are concerned there is no ground for interference in revision here. So far as the third point is concerned the learned Judge, in my opinion, has not correctly interpreted the provision in Order 33, rule 5, clause (d-1) and rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. The view of the learned Judge is that this question also can be decided only on the bare allegations in the petition and that the contesting respondents were not entitled to adduce any evidence. The rule as amended by our Court, clearly says that “where the suit appears to be barred by any law the petition should be rejected” and liberty is given under rule 6 to adduce evidence not only to the applicant but also t