Decided on August 28,1957



- (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal from the judgment and decree, dated 19-3-1951 of the Subordinate judge first Class of Delhi dismissing its suit on the ground that it is not competent in a civil court.
(2.) THE plaintiff company holds a permit for plying buses between Delhi and Panipat via Sonepat passing on the loop line. The two defendant-companies hold similar permit between Delhi and kaithal via Karnal. The plaintiff company alleges that the permit in favour of the defendant companies was subject to the condition that no passengers would be picked up by the defendant-companies in the municipal area of Karnal and Panipat nor are they to run their buses through Sonepat. In breach of that condition the defendant companies have started running service through sonepat and have also started picking up passengers from the municipal areas of Karnal and panipat thus causing recurring damage to the plaintiff company which damage has been calculated by it to the date of the suit from the date of the breach of the condition to be about Rs. 10,000/ -. The plaintiff company's case is that the condition in the permit of the defendant companies was imposed by the Regional Transport authority for its benefit to avoid cut-throat competition between the parties. That is why, says the plaintiff company, it was given exclusive permit for passing over the loop line to Sonepat and picking passengers from the municipal areas of Karnal and Panipat. It is said that the defendants have invaded this right of the plaintiff company which is therefore, entitled to a perpetual injunction against them restraining them from invasion of that right and also a decree for the amount of the damage suffered by it because of that invasion. A number of defences have been taken by the defendant-companies and one of those defences, on the basis of which the suit has been dismissed, is that the suit is not competent In a civil court. This defence has prevailed with the learned trial Judge and the result has been the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff company but leaving the parties to their own costs. This is the only question that is a matter for argument between the parties in this appeal.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff refers to Section 54 of the Indian Specific Belief Act and contends that though the plaintiff does not base his claim as arising out of any contractual relationship but as the defendant-companies have in breach of a statutory condition committed tort in causing damage to it, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought from a civil court and in support of this contention reference has been made to Municipal Committee, Montgomery v. Sant Singh, AIR 1940 Lah 377 (FB) (A); Rit Lal Mallah v. Raghubar Ram, 58 Ind Cas 714: (AIR 1920 Pat 207) (B); Bhujendra Nath v. Sushamoyee Bose, AIR 1936 Cal 67 (C); Manzur hassan v. Muhammad Zaman, AIR 1025 PC 36 (D); and Faiyaz Hussain v. Municipal Board, amroha, AIR 1939 All 280 (E ). In my opinion, none of these cases has any relevancy to the facts of the present case. All that was decided in the first case was that an inhabitant of a municipality has a right not to be taxed illegally and the Committee has a corresponding obligation not to impose an illegal tax. Such an obligation might well arise between a municipality and its inhabitant according to law and as it would obviously be for the benefit of the inhabitants, an inhabitant may obtain relief under section 54 of the Specific Belief Act; tout I fail to understand how this has any reference to the facts of the present case. In the second case there was interference with the certain in the use of a certain road in the shape of demanding a certain charge from them for passing the carts over the road. The learned Judge held that this was an invasion of the right of the cartmen who were thus entitled to a perpetual injunction. In the present case there has been no obstruction to the plaintiff company plying its buses on the route in accordance with the permit granted to it. The case has on facts no relevancy. The third case relates to a stranger to a contract enforcing the contract on the ground that it was made for his benefit. There is no question of contractual relationship in this case and so this case also is not concerned with the facts of the present case. The last two cases refer to the right to conduct a religious procession along a high way and it again is somewhat difficult to appreciate how those two cases can have any bearing on the facts of the present case.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.