Judgment :- 1. The appeal is by the defendant-State against a decree to refund an amount of Rs.1,700/- realised by them from the plaintiff on the ground that while he was the treasurer of the District Treasury at Quilon by payment of the amount as per a bill for the said amount to a wrong person he caused loss to the Government to the extent of that amount. As per orders of the Government to make good their loss, the plaintiff paid the amount into the Treasury on 15.1.1121 and the suit for its recovery was brought only on 22.7.1127. The two relevant Articles of the Limitation Act are Art.62 and 120, but whichever Article applies, the suit was, in our opinion, brought beyond time. It is conceded by the plaintiff-respondent that if Art.62 applied the cause of action arose on 15.1.1121 itself, but the argument is Art.120 applied and the 'right to sue' accrued only after the Government refused to make the refund. It would appear that along with the payment the plaintiff petitioned the Government to reconsider their order, but he was told that that could be done only after the termination of some criminal proceedings against two of his co-employees. Finally on 12.6.1952, more than 3 months after the institution of the suit, Government passed their revised orders fixing the plaintiff's liability at Rs. 1,000/- and directing refund of the balance in certain eventualities. We are not here concerned with the liabilities imposed for the refund. The appeal is limited to the amount refused to be refunded, namely, Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The cause of action for the plaintiff's suit arose when he made the payment pursuant to Government orders in that behalf. Subsequent attempts to get the Government to re-consider their order cannot have the effect of stopping or arresting the time which had begun to run for purposes of limitation. As the suit was brought even beyond the six years' period prescribed by Art.120 it is unnecessary for us to decide whether Art.62 is the only Article applicable. Even giving the extended period of 6 years to the plaintiff, his suit was brought beyond that and the lower court ought to have dismissed it. Allowing the appeal and revising the lower court's decision we dismiss the suit to the extent of the amount appealed against. 3. Even giving the extended period of 6 years to the plaintiff, his suit was brought beyond that and the lower court ought to have dismissed it. Allowing the appeal and revising the lower court's decision we dismiss the suit to the extent of the amount appealed against. 3. There will be no order for costs here or in the lower court. The lower court had disallowed the plaintiff his costs and in the view we take his memo of objections regarding that will stand dismissed. Order accordingly. Allowed.