1. It is urged that as the notice sent by the plaintiff to the Municipal Council of Kurnool on the 7th September 1901 was obviously defective the suit should have been dismissed. The notice was defective in that it did not, as required by Section 261 of the District Municipalities Act, specify the amount claimed as compensation or damages. I am, however, of opinion, that applying the principle on which the decision in Eales v. Municipal Commissioners of Madras I.L.R. 14 M. 386 was decided it should be held that the District Munsif was right in not dismissing the suit on the ground that the amount of the loss or damage sustained was not clearly specified in the notice, especially as it is shown that when on the Municipal Council having informed the plaintiff that the notice was defective, he asked them to inform him in what respect it was wanting and that they took no notice of his not unreasonable request, It is further contended that the provisions of Section 262 of the Act are a bar to the present suit. It is admitted that this point was not taken before the District Munsif. I am of opinion that it is not advisable in revision of a decree passed under the Small Cause Courts Act to go into a question such as this unless it appears that it was duly raised when the suit was before the Small Cause Court. In order to decide if the objection, now put forward is a valid one or not, the main question to be considered would be whether the provisions of the Municipal Act have in substance and in effect been complied with. Such a question would be mainly one of fact on which evidence would have to be considered by the Court, In the absence of such evidence it is not possible for this Court as a Court of revision to adjudicate on the matter.
2. It is finally urged that this suit was barred by limitation. As it appears that the distress took place in August 1901 and that the suit was filed before the close of that year, it is clear that there can be no bar by limitation.
[His Lordship finally dismissed the petition-Ed.]