Radhakrishnan, J.

This appeal is preferred against the order in Original Petition (Indigent) No. 8 of 2001 of Sub Court, Tirur. OP.8/01 was preferred under Order 33 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking permission to institute the suit as indigent person. Suit was instituted for a decree for realization of an amount of Rs.36,55,129/- as damages from the respondent. Court fee payable was Rs.2,06, 560/-. Petitioner stated that he does not have sufficient means to pay the court fee. Consequently permission was sought for to file the suit as an indigent person. Respondent filed counter statement contending that the application is not proper, that the petitioner is not an indigent person and that the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

2. Question regarding the maintainability of the application under Order 33 Rule 2 and as to whether the application is barred by Law of Limitation was considered as a preliminary issue. Court below found that petitioner has substantially complied with the provisions contained in Order 33 Rule 2 CPC in making the application. Court below however, Look the view that the suit is barred by Law of Limitation holding that the petitioner is not entitled to exclude the time spent for prosecuting the application in the Sub Court, Ernakulam in computing the period of limitation. Against the said finding this appeal has been preferred. In this case we are concerned only with the question as to whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation. Counsel on either side addressed their arguments only that point. Under Order 33 Rule 5(f) while entertaining an application to sue as an indigent person the court can examine whether the suit is barred by law of limitation where the allegations made by the applicant in the application would show the same. Application to sue as an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 2 was initially filed before Sub Court, Ernakulam on 12-10-98. By order dated 28-6-2001. Sub Court, Ernakulam found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and only the Sub Court, Tirur has jurisdiction. Consequently returned the plaint for presentation before Sub Court, Tirur. Thereafter the applications was filed by the petitioner before Sub Court, Tirur on 12-7-2001. Under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, the period prescribed for filling a suit for compensation for breach of contract is three years from the date when the contract is broken. Contract was broken on 5-3-1997. Application to sue as indigent persons was filed in Sub Court, Tirur only a 12-7-2001 beyond the period of three years. Consequent Delhi 60.

3. The only question to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said provision is extracted below for easy reference:

14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 2 of order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permis