Contractual claim against municipality not barred by municipal notice and limitation provisions; decree for amount due sustained.

A contractual claim against a municipality for road repair charges was held not to be barred by the notice and limitation requirements of Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922. The one-month notice requirement and the three-month period for commencing proceedings were treated as applicable to tort claims, not to a suit founded on contract, so dismissal of the suit on that ground was unsustainable. The trial court's finding on the amount due was not disturbed, and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the sum found payable, with costs awarded against the plaintiff in view of the prior offer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit on a contractual claim against a municipality was barred by the notice and limitation provisions of Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922.

Analysis: The claim arose out of a contract for road repairs and was not a tort claim. The provisions requiring one month's notice and commencement of proceedings within three months were held to be inapplicable to a suit founded on contract, and the dismissal of the suit in toto on that basis was held unsustainable. On the amount due, no sufficient ground was found to disturb the trial court's finding.

Conclusion: The notice and limitation objections failed, and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the amount found due, with costs against the plaintiff in view of the prior offer.

---