CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. (FIRM) HAZARI LAL GANGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the Cantonment Board of Allahabad from a decree of the Court of Small Causes granting a relief for recovery of money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a shop-keeper who alleged that he had supplied certain materials to the Board between July 1928 a January, 1930, but had not been paid the full amount of the price. He claimed nearly Rs. 300 as the amount of the balance with interest. His case was that after having supplied the goods he waited patiently for sometime, but the Board did not make any further payment, in consequence of which he was obliged to sue the Board after serving notice upon it as required by law. The Board denied the receipt of all the materials alleged to have been supplied by the plaintiff and also pleaded that the claim was barred by six months rule of limitation. The Board however did not assert that prior to the refusal contained in the reply to the notice served upon it by the plaintiff there had been any other refusal by the Board to pay the amount. The plea of limitation has been overruled by the Court below. The learned advocate for the applicant relies strongly on a number of rulings of this Court under Section 326, U.P. Municipalities Act, (2 of 1926), in which a wider meaning to a somewhat similar expression used in the section has been given. Under that section no suit can be instituted against a Board in respect of an act done in its official capacity after the expiry of six months after the accrual of the cause of action. It must however be admitted that there are other rulings in which a somewhat contrary opinion has been expressed. If the question had arisen under Section 326, Municipalities Act, we might have felt compelled to refer this case to a larger Bench. But the relevant section which we have to consider in this case is Section 273, Cantonment Act, (2 of 1924). The words in that section are not identical with the words in Section 328, Municipalities Act, and therefore the rulings relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant are not directly in point. Under Section 273, Sub-section (1): no suit shall be instituted against any Cantonment Authority...in respect of any act done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made thereunder, until the expiration of two months after notice in writing....

(2.) Then Sub-section (3), provides that no suit, such as is described in Sub- section (1) shall, unless it is an action for the recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto, be instituted after the expiry of six months from the date on which the cause of action arises Thus a different period of limitation is prescribed for suits of the nature mentioned in Sub-section (1) and the starting point of limitation for such suits is always the date on which the cause of action arises. The first question is whether a suit for recovery of materials supplied to the Board can be treated as a suit against the Board: in respect of any act done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made thereunder

(3.) It seems to me that the plaintiff is not suing the Board for any act; done by the Board in pursuance of the Cantonments Act; nor is he suing the Board for any act done by the Board or purporting to have been done by the Board under any rule or bye-law made under the Cantonments Act. The suit is for the recovery of the price of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant which is still unpaid. The cause of action for the suit is not the action of the Board in omitting to pay the price of the goods, but would ordinarily arise from the fact that goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the Board.