JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 2 of 1980 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the defendant. 2. According to plaintiff, he had supplied barbed wire to the defendant, on the basis of agreement. Ext. 5 and he was also paid the price thereof. However, a sum of Rs. 10500/- deposited by him as security money and Rs. 1000/- as earnest money were not returned to him. 3. According to defendant, security money of plaintiff was forfeited because wire supplied was not according to specification. It was found that wire was not galvanized and plaintiff was also black listed for the aforesaid reason. 4. The suit was decreed in part holding that plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1000/-. which he had deposited by. way of earnest money. Liberty was also given to the plaintiff to tile a fresh suit, if so advised. for recovery of aforesaid amount of Rs. 10500/-. which he had deposited by way of security money as Munsifs Court had no such pecuniary jurisdiction at the relevant time and its pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to Rs. 5000/- only. 5. Defendant preferred Money Appeal No. 5 of 1983 before the District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, which was heard by First Additional District Judge and was dismissed by impugned judgment and decree dated 15.7.1985 and trial Courts findings were affirmed. The first appellate Court found that plaintiff had agreed and understood clearly that he was called upon to supply galvanised barbed wire of the quality and quantity specified in the work order as well as in the agreement of the tender and he actually supplied the same quality of wire and mere omission of "galvanized" before the expression "barbed wire" in the agreement was of no consequence. The earnest money of Rs. 1000/- was merged with Rs. 10500/- and entire amount of Rs. 11500/- was treated as security money. The barbed wire supplied by plaintiff was not examined after it was supplied to find out that plaintiff had supplied sub-standard quality of barbed wire or not-As such plaintiff had not supplied sub-standard quality of barbed wire as alleged and that the defendants were not justified in forfeiting and withholding the security deposit including earnest money of Rs. 1000/- as claimed in the suit. Learned Munsif had rightly decreed the suit. 6. 1000/- as claimed in the suit. Learned Munsif had rightly decreed the suit. 6. This Court disposed of CWJC No. 1042 of 1980. which was filed by plaintiff challenging order of the State Government dated 12.11.1979. whereby he was black listed. The said order was quashed with an observation that amount of earnest money and security shall not be forfeited on account of black listing. 7. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the two courts below. There is no merit in this Second Appeal. It is. accordingly, dismissed, but without costs. Lower Court records may be sent down. 8. Appeal dismissed.