S R CHAKRAPANI CHETTIAR Vs. S GURUSWAMI REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in 0. S. No. 371 of 1974, Sub Court, Cuddalore, is the appellant in this appeal. That suit was laid by the-respondent herein praying for the recovery of a sum of Its. 40,000, as damages and other incidental relief's under the following circumstances. The plaintiff and the defendant are stage carriage operators and they have been applying for grant of permits in respect of several routes. In relation to two such routes, namely, Panruti-Vallam and Pantuti-Arasur, the plaintiff, the defendant and certain others had applied for the grant of stage cairriage permits. Sometime in October 1971, before the applications were taken up for consideration, an agreement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff should withdraw, his application for the route Panruti-Vallarn and that the defendant should likewise withdraw his application with reference to the route Panruti-Arasur. In accordance with his agreement, when the R. T. A. took up for consideration the grant of permit on the route Panruti-Vallam on 27-10-1971, the plaintiff withdrew his application and the defendant was granted the permit on that route by the R. T. A. In relation to Panruti-Arasur, the R. T. A. had fixed 29-21972 as the date for the consideration of the, applications and on 28-12-1972, a letter of withdrawal of the application of the defendant was filed before the R. T. A. However, on 29-2-1972, when the - R. T. A. took for consideration the grant of stage carriage permit on the route Panruti-Arasur, the defendant engaged another counsel and prayed for the withdrawal and in spite of opposition by The plaintiff, that was allowed and eventually the defendant was granted the permit even on the route Panruti-Arasur by the R. T. A. Against this, the plaintiff and two others filed ' Appl. Nos. 53,3, 655 and 670 of 1972 to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, MadYas, and on 23-9-1972, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that the R.T.A. was not right in permitting the defendant to withdraw his letter of withdrawal of the application and that the application of the defendant must be considered to have been withdrawn rendering it unnecessary to be considered. 'Considering the merits also, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that the plaintiff was entitled to be granted the permit and accordingly granted the permit to the plaintiff for the route Panruti-Arasur. The correctness of this order was challenged in C. R. P. 2520 of 1972 and that was dismissed on 18-8-1973, with the result that the grant of the stage carriage permit in favour of the plaintiff for the route Panruti- Arasur by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal stood confirmed. Claiming that as a result of the breach . of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant in relation to the route Panruti-Arasur committed by the defendant, the plaintiff had sustained loss' in collections on the route Panruti- Arasur. for a period of 15 months during which the defendant had run on that route and further that other expenses had also to be incurred by the plaintiff which amounted. in all to Rs. 96,000. The plaintiff stated that he restricted his claim to Rs. 40,000 and sought the recovery of this amount against the defendant with interest from the date of suit till the date of realisation.

(2.) The defendant. resisted the suit contending that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was not true and that in any event it was opposed to public policy as well as the provisions relating to the grant of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act. The further plea of the defendant was that the agreement was illegal and that was the reason why even in C. R: P. 2520 of 1972 there was no reference to ge agreement, and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot base his claim for damages on such an agreement. The agreement was also stated to be devoid of consideration. It was also contended by the defendant that there were other applicants for the grant of permit on the route PanrutiArasur and the authorities had to consider the grant of a permit on a consideration of the merits and qualifications and, therefore, there was no certainty that the plaintiff would have secured the permit in the event of the withdrawal of the application by the defendant. The damages sustained by the plaintiff was, according to the dofendant-not direct or proximate cause -of the breach of the agreement. The quantum of damages claimed by the Plaintiff was characterized as excessive and fanciful. On those -grounds, the detendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings, of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether there was any agreement as stated by the plaintiff and if so what are the terms ? 2. Whether the agreement even if true is valid -and enforceable? 3. Whether the alleged agreement is opposed to public policy and hence invalid ? * Whether there was any breach of the agreement ? Whether the plaintiff suffixed- any damages and if so, to what amount is the plaintiff entitled ? To what relief ?