Ramaprasada Rao, J.- The plaintiff who lost in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rsmanathapuram in O.S. No. 134 of 1969 on its file is the appellant. In or about the beginning of 1969 there was acute water scarcity in the Virudhunagar town which is within the jurisdiction of the Virudhunagar Municipality which is the defendant in the suit. The council resolved on 28th February, 1969 and to wit under Exhibit P-17 to supply water to the public. It is common ground that at the time when the Municipality was seized of the subject, they intended that such supply should be for a period of 120 days. Bearing this in mind obviously tenders were called for the supply of such water through lorries to the residents of the town.. Exhibit A-1 is the tender notice. Exhibit B-2 is the tender which the plaintiff gave in which he obviously quoted an offer to supply such water for a period of 120 days. Under Exhibit B-5 which is the agreement for the work in question to be performed by the plaintiff no such period however has been stipulated. The plaintiff started performing the contract but under Exhibit A-4 dated 8th May, 1969 the defendant issued a memo. stating that the plaintiff was required to offer his willingness for the supply of water through lorries at Rs. 30 per trip as some of the Municipal contractors were willing to supply water through lorries at the said rate. The plaintiff was directed to offer his willingness within 24 hours from the receipt of the said memo. Before the plaintiff could reply to the memo. under Exhibit A-6, the defendant issued the following notice:

“ The Municipal contractor, V. Madasamy Nadar is informed that the contract for the supply of water through lorry is cancelled with effect from 1st June, 1969. He should hand over the steel tanks and other materials received from the Municipality to the Water Works Supervisor on the night of 31st May, 1969 without fail.”

The defendant therefore expressed his intention to cancel the contract with effect from 1st June, 1969. The plaintiff, however, caused a reply to be given to the memo Exhibit A-4 under Exhibit A-5 in which he fully set out his case. According to the plaintiff the original tender was given wide publicity and the Council accepted the plaintiff’s tender as it was found to be a fair one. He pleaded that the contract had been concluded and, therefore, strongly expressed that he should be allowed to supply the water as usual for the period ending 31st July, 1969. He denied his responsibility to supply such water at the rate of Rs. 30 per lorry per trip. He also claimed damages for the premature termination of the contract. Not being sure whether the Municipality will permit him to continue the supply as was intended under the tender, the plaintiff filed a suit on the file of the Vacation Judge’s Court, Ramanathapuram in O.S. No. 25 of 1969 and obtained an interim injunction till 12th June, 1969. On 12th June, 1969 the defendant entered appearance in the suit and wanted time for counter till 17th June, 1969. Thereafter the Vacation Judge passed the following order:

“ Interim injunction till then directing the defendant to take the required quantity of water at the rate of Rs. 30 per lorry per trip subject to the decision of the Court in the suit.”

This order was passed in the presence of the counsel for the defendant. Thereafter and during the course of the proceedings under Exhibit A-7, dated 17th June, 1969 the defendant purported to terminate the contract once again from 18th June 1969. It is common ground that on and from 18th June, 1969 the plaintiff did not supply any water. Consequent upon the alleged premature termination of the contract and also because the plaintiff did not obtain satisfaction for the work done during the period when he caused the supply of water to be made pursuant to the orders of the civil Court the plaintiff came to Court. The plaint was suitably amended as originally he sought for an injunction alone and he sought for the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document