JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated December 13, 1989 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Bharatpur whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant (for short the plaintiff) against the defendant-respondents (for short the defendants) for the recovery of Rs. 27,031 and 26 paise was dismissed being barred by limitation. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of money against the defendants on January 15, 1980 in the trial court. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that work for construction of road was sanctioned in his favour by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bharatpur. On account of some lapses on the part of said Samiti, the work could not be completed within stipulated period. Amount in the sum of Rs. 20,332.26 was due against the Samiti but it was not paid. Therefore the plaintiff served a notice and claimed the amount due as well as interest in the sum of Rs. 6655.18 and thereafter instituted civil suit. The defendants disputed this claim in their written statement and also made counter claim of Rs. 30,712/- against the plaintiff. Objection that suit was barred by limitation was also raised. As many as twelve issues were framed by the trial court. Issue No. was framed as under "Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation ?" 3. Learned trial court decided issue No.7 as preliminary issue and dismissed the suit holding that the suit was barred by limitation. 4. Mr. Jagdish Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff urged that the learned trial court did not properly appreciate the provisions contained in section 31 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1961 (for short the Act). The words "done or purported to be done" under the Act have not been legally construed. In the facts and circumstances of the case the suit did not fall within the purview of section 31(2) of the Act and was not barred by limitation. In the instant case provisions of section 70 of the Contract Act were applicable. The defendants were liable to pay the contractual amount and failure to pay the said amount can not be held and act done or purporting to the done tinder the Act. In the instant case provisions of section 70 of the Contract Act were applicable. The defendants were liable to pay the contractual amount and failure to pay the said amount can not be held and act done or purporting to the done tinder the Act. Therefore the trial court committed illegality in making observation that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed after expiry of six months of accrual of cause of action. Reliance was placed on Firm Suraj mal Banshi Dhar vs. Municipal Boards, AIR 1979 SC: 246. 5. On the other hand, Miss Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the defendants supported the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel submitted that provisions contained in Section 31 of the Act are applicable in the case. The Marketing Development Fund is utilised for construction of market Roads and approach roads to the Markets. Section 22 J of the Act spells the purposes for which the said fund is utilised. Therefore construction of Roads comes under "an act done or purporting to be under the Act" and therefore the suit was barred by limitation. As Act is special law it will prevail over general law. Reliance was placed on Prof. Sumer Chand vs. U.O.I., 1993(2) UJ (SC) 599 . 6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to look at the relevant statutory provisions. 7. Section 2(1) (iia) of the Act defines 'Board' as under "Board" means the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board established under Section 22-A" Section 2(l)(ix) of the Act defines "Market Committee" as under "Market Committee" means a market committee established under section 6." Section 22-A of the Act reads as under-- "22-A State Agricultural Marketing Board. -(1) With effect from such date as the Government may by notification appoint in this behalf, there shall be established for the State of Rajasthan a Board to be called the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board. -(1) With effect from such date as the Government may by notification appoint in this behalf, there shall be established for the State of Rajasthan a Board to be called the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board. (2) The Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and subject to such restrictions as are imposed by or under this Act or any other enactment, shall be vested with the capacity to sue or to be sued in its corporate name, or acgiuiring, holding and disposing of, movable or immovable property, of entering into contracts and of doing all things necessary, proper or expedient for the purposes for which it is constituted." Section 6 of the Act reads as under- "6. Establishment of market committees.-The State Government shall establish a market committee for every market area in respect of the agricultural produce for which it is declared to be a market area under section 4." 8. After perusing all the provisions referred to as hereinabove, I now consider section 31 of the Act which provides as under - "Section 31-Bar of suit in absence of notice.-No suit shall be instituted against any market committee or any member, officer or servant thereof or any person acting under the direction of any such market committee member, officer or servant for anything done or purporting to be done in good faith as such member, officer or servant under this Act until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing, stating the cause of action, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief which he claims, has been, in the case of a market committee delivered or left at its office and, in the case of any such member, officer, servant or person as aforesaid, delivered to him or left at his office or usual place of abode and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (2) Every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within six months from the date of the accrual of the alleged cause of action." A close look at section 31 of the Act reveals that it only applies to the 'Market Committee'. It does not say anything about the 'Board'. So it is abundant clear that provisions of section 31 are not applicable to the Board. It does not say anything about the 'Board'. So it is abundant clear that provisions of section 31 are not applicable to the Board. Therefore the period of limitation of six months as provided in sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Act is not applicable in the suit instituted against the Board. (Emphasis supplied) 9. Functions of Market Committee are defined in section 9 of the Act. Act of sanctioning construction of road does not come in the purview of the functions of the Market Committee. 10. Payment of contractual amount is a subject which is governed by the provisions enumerated in the Indian Contract Act and it can not be a subject matter of the Special Act. Learned trial court did not properly construe the provisions of section 31 of the Act and committed illegality in deciding issue No. 7 again the plaintiff. The suit was not barred by the limitation as provisions of section 31 of the Act are not applicable to the suit. Suit was governed by the general law of limitation whereby the trial could have been instituted within a period of three years from the date of accrual of cause of action which arose on April 20, 1977. Therefore the suit filed on Jan. 15, 1980 was within limitation. Issue No.7 thus is decided in favour of the plaintiff. 11. I am not convinced with the submissions of Miss Ashish Joshi, learned counsel that the provisions contained in the Act are applicable in the case on hand. Ratio of Prof. Sumer Chand's case (supra) is not relevant for the decision of this case. In Prof. Sumer Chand's case provisions of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act were interpreted in the light of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. 12. The result of foregoing discussion is that appeal succeeds and stands allowed. Impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the case is remitted to the learned trial court for deciding it on merits after recording the evidence of the parties. The record of the case be sent back forthwith to trial court. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on September 1997. Costs easy.Appeal Allowed. *******