A contractor's suit against a District Board for payment under contract is governed by Section 192 of the District Boards Act, requiring timely notice and may be barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

1. This application in which arises the question, whether a suit brought by contractor against a District Board for recovery of money due under the contract for the work done by him is governed by the provisions of S.192 of the District Boards Act , has been referred to this Bench in order to resolve the supposed conflict among District Board, Allahabad v. Behari Lal , 1935 All. LJ., 1214 : (AIR 1938 All. 18) (FB), Dargahi Lal v. Cawnpore Municipal Board AIR 1952 All. 382 FB) and Lucknow Nagar Mahapalikav, Sardar Karmajeet Singh, 1962 All. LJ 165 : AIR 1962 All. 174 (FB).

2. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows. A predecessor of the opposite parties entered into a contract on 3-9-1952 with the District Board of Budaun, now represented by the applicant Antraim Zila Parishad, for repairs of a road. The relevant terms of the contract were as follows : -
The work should be completed by 30-11-1952 to the entire satisfaction of the officer granting completion certificate. On completion of the work the contractor should send a registered notice to the District Board Engineer requesting him to give him a certificate of completion. The work must be umpired by the Engineer whose measurements will be binding. No payment will be made for the work till alter a certificate of completion has been given. The work should be executed in accordance with the specifications, drawings, orders, etc. It must be executed under the direction, and subject to the approval of the Engineer. The decision of the Board upon all questions relating to the interpretation of the specifications, designs and instructions, to the quality of the workmanship or materials used and to other question, claim, right, matter or thing arising out it or relating to the contract, designs etc. or otherwise concerning the works, or the execution of the work or failure to execute the same shall be final and completely binding on the contractor. If the Engineer finds that the work has been executed with unsound, imperfect and unskilful workmanship or with materials of inferior description or otherwise not to accordance with the contract the contractor must on written notice from the Engineer rectify or reconstruct the work and in default he will be liable to pay compensation at a certain rate on the estimated amount of the work. The work will be completed in all respects by 30-11-52. If the contractor fails to comply with any condition referred to above and the directions given by the Engineer he will be liable to pay penalty of fine which he inflicts on him.
The contractor completed the work in September 1952 and gave a registered notice to the Engineer interning him about the completion of the work and the Engineer got it inspected by an Overseer who reported on 21-11-1952 that it had been done very unsatisfactorily. The Engineer called upon the contractor to do it again and properly and on 27-1-1953 he replied that he had done it again and properly and that it might be inspected and a bill might be prepared it once. There was protracted correspondence but the Board did not pay the sum of Rs.750/- claimed by the opposite parties under the contract. The opposite parties served upon the Board on 1-11-1955 a notice under S.192 of the District Boards Act calling upon it to pay Rs.750/- together with Rs.50/- on account of damages within two months. The Board did not give any reply to the notice and they instituted the suit giving rise to this application on 17-3-1956 for recovery of Rs.800/-

3. The suit was contested by the applicant on several grounds, one being that it was barred by time according to S.192 of the District Boards Act . The trial Court decree