JUDGMENT - S.K. DESAI, J.:---This Revision Application is preferred against the order of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Aurangabad made on 14th February, 1974 in Small Cause Suit No. 416 of 1973. By the said order the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, held that the suit was barred by the law of limitation and dismissed the same, directing the parties to bear their own costs of the same. A few facts may be stated : The plaintiffs suit was in respect of two amounts of Rs. 577/- and Rs. 11/- which he had paid to the defendant, the Aurangabad Municipal Council, on 26th July, 1969 and 16th February, 1970. In the plaint the plaintiff claimed to have made the payment under coercion (see para 5 of the plaint) and bona fide under mistake of law (see para 6 of the plaint). Subsequently in para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff goes on to say that the defendant is not entitled to levy and collect the said amount as planning fees and that this aspect of the matter came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 1st November, 1972 when a certain judgment was given by the Bombay High Court which is referred to in the said para. The plaintiff claims that the limitation runs against him from the date of knowledge of the said judgment and that accordingly the suit which was filed in September 1973 is in time. The learned Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff placed reliance on the observations to be found in paragraphs 28 and 34 of the decision in (M/s. K.S. Venkataraman and Company (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras)1, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1089. The Supreme Court in the said decision was dealing with a suit for refund of tax purportedly paid under a mistaken belief that in law the tax was payable. According to the Supreme Court, the claim in the suit was governed by Article 96 and not Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and time would run from the date on which the mistake became known. The article equivalent to Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There is no corresponding Article to Article 96 (of the Act of 1908), but it was submitted by Mr. The article equivalent to Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There is no corresponding Article to Article 96 (of the Act of 1908), but it was submitted by Mr. Agrawal that the residuary Article 113 would apply and in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. K.S. Venkatraman Companys case the right to sue must be deemed to have accrued to the plaintiff when he came to know of the decision of the High Court. The trial Court has distinguished the observations of the Supreme Court in M/s K.S. Venkataraman Companys case. With respect to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, I have not been able to follow the discussion in his order. The plaintiff has made the claim on the footing that under the mistaken belief that the defendant Council was entitled in law to levy such amount as planning fees he had paid the amounts. The plaintiff claims to have realised that the Council was not entitled in law to levy such fees on 1st November, 1972 when, according to the plaintiff, he became aware of the judgment of the Bombay High Court referred to in para 6 of the plaint. Accordingly the amount is claimed by him on the footing of payment made under a mistake of law and he claims that time should be held to run against him from the date on which he realised his mistake i.e., on the date on which he became aware of the judgment of the Bombay High Court viz., 1st November, 1972. If the factual position is accepted, then applying the observations in M/s. K.S. Venkatraman and Companys case, the claim in suit would be in time. Mr. Deshpande submitted that in M/s. K.S. Venkataraman and Companys case levy of sales-tax has been held to be unconstitutional. I do not find any difference between an illegal levy under an unconstitutional legislation and a levy without even having an authority of any legal provision. Both are on the same footing. The question which requires determination is whether the plaintiff made the payment under a mistake and when in fact did he discover the alleged mistake? These are questions which have not been gone into by the lower Court in the view that the learned trial Judge took of the position under the Indian Limitation Act. The question which requires determination is whether the plaintiff made the payment under a mistake and when in fact did he discover the alleged mistake? These are questions which have not been gone into by the lower Court in the view that the learned trial Judge took of the position under the Indian Limitation Act. There are other issues also arising in the suit, which do not appear to have been dealt with in the impugned judgment. I may add that it appears that no evidence was led in the suit and the issue as to limitation was decided on the footing of a demurrer. It is conceivable that the claim in suit may be held to be barred after evidence is led and if the plaintiff falls to establish his allegations in the plaint. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the suit will now be heard by the trial Court in accordance with the observations made earlier. If necessary, the trial Court will reframe the issues and thereafter allow the parties to lead evidence. This aspect of the matter will be entirely in the discretion of the trial Court. The parties will bear their own costs of the Revision Application. -----