1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.454 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1052 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1759 OF 2000 M/s.United Liner Agencies of India (Pvt.) Ltd. .... Appellants V/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.V.R.Dhond i/by A. Mehta Laljee and Co., for the appellants. Smt.Manjiri Shah a/w Smt.Elezabeth Joseph i/by Motiwalla & Co., for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly retained the plaint against the defendant No.2, as it has been found that this is not a case in which plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the appellant however, submitted that in view of Section 230 of the Contract Act, 1872, suit against the agent is not maintainable. It is required to be noted that this is not a suit for specific performance of the agreement, but it is a suit for 2 damages for the alleged breach of the contract. So far as damages is concerned, plaintiffs will have to prove his case on the basis of evidence. In our view, it cannot be said that agent is not a necessary party to the proceedings. The appellant can certainly lead appropriate evidence in the suit to point out that he is not required to pay any damages and no decree can be passed against him in view of the provisions of Section 230 of the Contract Act. All these aspects can be decided in the suit itself. This is not a case in which plaint can be straight way rejected against defendant No.2. We accordingly agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. 3. Subject to what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed. ( R.V.MORE, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)