Judgment Mahapatra, J. 1. The applicants had made an application in the Court below under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue in forma pauperis the opposite party defendants for recovery of damages from them, after service of a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiring into that application, refused the permission and this application is directed against that. 2. The main question for consideration is whether the applicants have proved themselves to be eligible for the permission to sue as a pauper. They examined one witness who was cross examined by one of the opposite party defendants who had entered appearance in the Court below and had filed objection to the application of the intending plaintiffs for permission to sue as pauper. It came out of the cross-examination of the witness that one of the applicants, who is a married lady, had received some ornaments at the time of her marriage that took place seventeen years back, and the Court thought that, in absence of evidence that such ornaments are no longer in her possession one of the applicants should he deemed to be in possession of means out of which court-fee could be paid for the intended suit. The value of such ornaments was, as indicated in the suggestion offered in cross-examination, one thousand rupees. The witness was unable to say whether they were worth one hundred or one thousand rupees. A Hindu married lady cannot be divested of all ornaments as long as her husband is alive, and, according to the custom prevalent in the Hindu society, she must put on, at least, some ornaments, like the Mangal Sutra and the bangles. In that view of the matter, the evidence on record cannot be said to justify the conclusion of the Court below that one of the applicants was possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee. This finding is not based on evidence and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 3. The next objection raised in the Court below was that the father-in-law of applicant No. 2 (plaintiff No. 2) possessed some house in the town of Patna. This finding is not based on evidence and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 3. The next objection raised in the Court below was that the father-in-law of applicant No. 2 (plaintiff No. 2) possessed some house in the town of Patna. I fail to see how that can amount to property in the hands of one of the applicants so as to be considered for the purpose of ascertaining her ability to pay the court-fee for the intended suit. The required court fee was over three thousand rupees. 4. The other ground of objection was that the book-shop, which was one of the applicants (an unregistered firm) and which was attached in execution of a decree passed by the Calcutta High Court, did not produce papers and accounts to show to what extent the bookshop was paying sales-tax on the total turnover of its business From 1959, books were exempted from levy of sales tax. The suit was for recovery of damages on account of loss sustained by the applicants plaintiffs, caused by negligence of officers who conducted the attachment and who remained in charge and custody of the property attached which mostly consisted of hooks and which was found seriously damaged, largely missing In view of the nature of the suit, the amount of sales-tax, if at all levied, would not have indicated the existence of means possessed by the book-shop for the purpose of determining its ability to pay the court-fee. To me it appears that the Court below went completely wrong in rejecting the application of the applicants and that will be further evidenced from its conclusion on the questions of limitation and jurisdiction in regard to the entertainment of the suit in Court, Such questions are of a complicated nature and should always be left to be determined, after evidence, during the trial. Any finding recorded on those questions against any of the parties in the enquiry of pauperism will greatly handicap the party concerned, as he will not have an opportunity to asitate these questions in a superior Court of course, prima facie, if on the averments made in the intended plaint, it appears that the contemplated suit is barred by limitation, then it will be for the court to take that into account, as provided under Sec.3 of the Limitation Act In this case, it cannot be said that the question of limitation as propounded by the Court below was bereft of difficulties. Whether the pro-posed suit was directed against the attachment itself or against the persons who committed the acts of negligence and other things which brought loss to the applicants were matters to be considered. Similarly, also whether the suit was barred under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act was a question that was dependent upon the facts of the case and on the nature of the suit. The finding of the Court below on the question of pauperism appears to have been influenced to a great extent by its view on the questions of limitation and jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party urged that, however gross or perverse the finding of the Court below might have been on a question of fact, it was not to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Broadly stated, the proposition is right; but, if there be such an error of law committed by the court below which led to failure to exercise of jurisdiction by that Court, such error is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court (vide the case of Pandurang Dhondi Chougule V/s. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 158). As I have already stated, the views taken by the Court below on the questions of limitation and jurisdiction amounted in this case to ousting of the jurisdiction of the Court, and, therefore, on the errors committed by the Court below, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court could be invoked in this application in revision. 6. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow this application, set aside the order of the Court below and allow the applicants permission to sue in forma pauperis. The application is allowed but without costs in the circumstances of this case.