Short Note : 1. The material facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly are as follows : The non-applicant instituted a suit against the applicant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 169.86/-. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant-applicant had illegally recovered a sum of Rs. 124.92/- from the plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to get a refund of that amount along with interest. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned trial Judge held that the defendant had failed to prove that the amount was legally recovered from the plaintiff and that the suit was not barred by limitation. In this view of the matter the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant has preferred this revision petition. Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties. I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The trial Court has found that the defendant-applicant has failed to prove that the recovery of a sum of Rs. 124.92/- from the plaintiff by way of octroi charges was according to law. learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that in arriving at this finding the trial Court has committed any error of law. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with this finding. 2. It was, however, strenuously contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the trial Court erred in law in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisious of section 319 (2) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act, and contended that as the suit was admittedly brought beyond eight months from the date of accrual of the cause of action, it deserved to be dismissed. Learned counsel relied on a short-note reported in Jaindas Charandas v. Nagar Palika, Bhind (1962 MPLJ-SN 308). The full report of that decision is not available, but the matter, in my opinion, is covered by the decision of this Court reported in Balaghat Municipality v. Meghraj, 1966 JLJ 53 , which is bassed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Provincial Government, Madras v. J.S. Basappa ( AIR 1964 SC 1873 ). The full report of that decision is not available, but the matter, in my opinion, is covered by the decision of this Court reported in Balaghat Municipality v. Meghraj, 1966 JLJ 53 , which is bassed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Provincial Government, Madras v. J.S. Basappa ( AIR 1964 SC 1873 ). In Balaghat Municipality v. Meghraj (supra), it has been held, that the expression 'purporting to be done under the Act', occurring in section 319(1) of the Act, does not include an act which is wholly outside the provisions of the Act, and that the provisions of section 319(2) of the Act were, therefore, not applicable to a suit for refund of a tax which the Municipality was not authorised to recover. In view of the decision in Balaghat Municipality v. Meghraj, 1966 JLJ 53 the contention of the petitioner that the suit is barred by limitation by virtue of the provisions of section 319 (2) of the Act cannot be upheld. Revision dismissed.