JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has arisen in the following manner: The plaintiff is a contractor. He entered on 30th September 1920, into a written contract with the District Board of Sitapur to make certain constructions on their behalf. These constructions were not completed in April 1923, and, with the consent of the District Board, the plaintiff was relieved from his obligations under; the contract apparently on an understanding that account should be settled on the basis of the work done. The plaintiff's case is that he handed over to the District Board, which itself had undertaken to complete the constructions, certain materials, and that, after credit had been given to him for the work which he had done, and for the materials which he had supplied and after advances made to him had been debited to the account, there was a balance in his favour on 19th April 1923. According to him he was not in a position to discover the exact amount of this balance until later. He issued a notice on 5th October 1925, which was apparently intended to be issued to the Board, but it actually was issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur who in the year 1925, had no connexion with the Board and no responsibility in the matter In this notice he also very foolishly, in addition to making his claim for the balance which he alleged to be due, added a somewhat preposterous claim for damages for what he alleged had occurred as far back as 1920. This claim for damages has since been withdrawn. The Board did not settle his account. He instituted a suit against them on 25th February 1926. The Board in reply took two main defences. The first was that no suit could be instituted against them under the provisions of Section 192, Local Act 10 of 1922, in connexion with this matter until the expiration of two months next after notice had been left at its office, and that no notice had been received. They further took the position that the cause of action had accrued more than six months before the date of the institution of the suit and that, therefore, the suit was also barred under the provisions of Section 192. Both Courts have decided in favour of the Board on these points. It is quite clear to us that if the issue of a notice under Section 192 was required the plaintiff's suit must fail, for no notice had been left at the Board's office; but we are of opinion that no notice was necessary. Section 192, Clause (1), says:

No suit shall be instituted against a Board...in respect of an act done or purporting to have been done in its...official capacity, until the expiry of two months next after notice in writing has been in the case of a Board left at its office....

And Clause (3) states:

No action such as is described in Sub-section (1) shall, unless it is an action for the recovery of immovable property or a declaration of title thereto, be commenced otherwise than within sis months next after the accrual of the cause of action.

2. If this is not a suit instituted against a Board in respect of an act done or purporting to have been done in its official capacity the provisions of the section have no application and limitation will be decided by the provisions of Act 9 of 1908. We have examined the plaintiff's pleadings which are exceedingly bad and reflect very little credit on the person who drafted them. The pleadings on behalf of the Board leave also much to be desired. This much, however, appears certain to us: This was a suit for the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request where no time had been fixed for payment and the ordinary period of limitation under Article 56, Schedule 1, Act 9, 1908 was three years from the time that the work had been done. Now the plaintiff's work had been done oh 19th April 1923, and the suit was filed on 25th February 1926, and was thus clearly within limitation unless Section 192. Local Act 10, 1922, has operation. The suit was for the price of work done and it certainly was not instituted again