1. It is urged that as the notice sent by the plaintiff to the Municipal Council of Kurnool on the 7th September 1901 was obviously defective the suit should have been dismissed. The notice was defective in that it did not, as required by Section 261 of the District Municipalities Act, specify the amount claimed as compensation or damages. I am, however, of opinion, that applying the principle on which the decision in Eales v. Municipal Commissioners of Madras I.L.R. 14 M. 386 was decided it should be held that the District Munsif was right in not dismissing the suit on the ground that the amount of the loss or damage sustained was not clearly specified in the notice, especially as it is shown that when on the Municipal Council having informed the plaintiff that the notice was defective, he asked them to inform him in what respect it was wanting and that they took no notice of his not unreasonable request, It is further contended that the provisions of Section 262 of the Act are a bar to the present suit. It is admitted that this point was not taken before the District Munsif. I am of opinion that it is not advisable in revision of a decree passed under the Small Cause Cour