Judgment :- K.A. SWAMI, C.J. 1. At the stage of admission, learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board has been directed to take notice. Accordingly, Mr. Rajeswaran, Standing counsel for the Electricity Board, has put in appearance. Learned Government Pleader is also directed to take notice in this matter as the issue involved is as to whether the appellant should be permitted to prosecute the appeal as indigent person. Accordingly, learned Government Pleader has also entered appearance. As the point involved in this appeal is short, we admit the appeal and dispose of the same by this judgement. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 8.7.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in C.M.P. No. 3918 of 1993 in Appeal S.R. No. 83501 of 1992. The aforesaid Appeal S.R. No. 83501 of 1992 is preferred against the judgement and decree dated 24.9.1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in O.S. No. 55 of 1989. In the trial court, the appellant was permitted to prosecute the suit as indigent person. The relief sought for in the suit is for damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- . The trial court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the claim is barred by time. The learned single judge has gone into the question of limitation while considering the C.M.P. No. 3918 of 1993 and has refused to grant permission to prosecute the appeal on the ground that the claim in the suit is barred by time. It may be pointed out here that the question as to whether the claim made in the suit is barred by time or not has to be decided in the appeal itself. No doubt, order 44 Rule 2, as substituted by Central Act 104/76 stated that the Appellate Court after fixing a day for hearing the applicant or his pleader and hearing him accordingly if he appears on that day, and upon a perusal of the application and of the judgment and decree appealed from, shall reject the application, unless it sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law, or is otherwise erroneous or unjust. On the basis of the aforesaid rule, the learned single judge has recorded a finding that the decree cannot be held to be contrary to law as the decision on the question of limitation is correct. On the basis of the aforesaid rule, the learned single judge has recorded a finding that the decree cannot be held to be contrary to law as the decision on the question of limitation is correct. We are of the view that such question of limitation, being a serious question of law having a bearing on the merits of the claim has to be decided in the appeal after examining the evidence adduced in the case and it cannot be decided while deciding the C.M.P. filed for seeking permission to prosecute the appeal as indigent person. The fact that there is a question of law as to limitation involved in the appeal and the correctness of the decision of the lower court is disputed by the appellants itself would be sufficient to permit the appellants to prosecute the appeal as indigent persons since they have been allowed by the trial court, after holding enquiry, to sue as indigent persons. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to advert to the decisions referred to by the learned single Judge in the course of the order. 3. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 8.7.1993 passed in C.M.P. No. 3918 of 1993 in Appeal S.R. No. 83501 of 1992 is set aside. C.M.P. is allowed. The appellants are permitted to prosecute the appeal as indigent persons. The registry is directed to register the appeal and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. In view of the disposal of the appeal, no orders are necessary in the connected C.M.P. and it is accordingly rejected. No costs.