R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) This is a Letter Patent Appeal on behalf of the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing his Regular First Appeal, by which the dismissal of his suit by the trial court was upheld.
(2.) Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 40,000/- as damages for the alleged breach of contract of clearing and for-warding the tractors of the respondent-Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. It was alleged by the plaintiff-appellant in the plaint that in response to tender notice by the respondent for clearing and forwarding about 1500 tractors he gave his offer, which was accepted and he was appointed the Agent of the respondent Though no formal contract was entered between the parties, but the plaintiff cleared 1000 tractors received at 4 different Railway Stations mentioned in the tender notice. It was alleged 'hat the contract was revoked unilaterly by the respondent and fresh tenders were invited for clearing and forwarding a number of items, including 500 tractors. To restrain the respondent from doing so, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for injunction, but he failed and , thereafter he filed the suit claiming damages of Rs. 40,000/- for the alleged breach of contract.
(3.) The defendant-respondent had contested the suit and the defence which was set up was that by accepting the offer of the plaintiff-appellant, only the terms on which the work was to be done, were settled and unless a formal work order was placed on the plaintiff, no binding contract could come into existence and the respondent was within its right to terminate the contract according to clause 8 of the tender notice, which formed the basis of the offer and the acceptance. Though 11 issues were struck, but it would not be necessary to notice them, excepting Issue No 3, which reads as under:- "What is the effect of Clause 8 of the tender notice dated 7.2.1969 vide which the plaintiff agreed to the defendant terminating the agency of the plaintiff's firm after the expiry of notice of one month - In clause 8 of the tender notice, it was mentioned that the quantity shown in the Schedule was only approximate and likely to vary according to the requirements of the respondent. The learned trial Court took the view that no completed contract had come into being between the parties and as such the respondent was within its right to invoke the provisions of clause 8 and terminate the agency of the plaintiff. The suit was accordingly, dismissed vide judgment dated 28th February, 1973.;