1. The first point argued is whether Article 43-A of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act bars the suit. There is no allegation in the plaint that the suit amount was misappropriated by the defendant. The plaint though in Telugu contains English words and does not use the word 'misappropriate'. There is no allegation that any offence has been committed. Nor is there any allegation that the defendant dishonestly kept the amount with himself. Under these circumstances the cognizance of the suit in Small Cause Court cannot beheld to be tarred. The point was not taken in the Court below.
2. Notice was given to the defendant before suit and it was referred to in the plaint.
3. The suit is not barred by limitation by reason of Section 156, Act V of 1884, because the keeping of the money with the defendant is not an act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Local Boards Act. The six months' rule does not apply.
4. The first defendant admitted the drawing of the amount for payment to plaintiff and pleaded payment. This is sufficient privity for sustaining an action to recover money bad and received for plaintiff's use : (Halisbury's Laws of England, Vol. II, page 475, para. 967). It may be that the second defendant is also liable. But that cannot affect the first defendant's liability.
5. The petition is dismissed with costs.