JUDGMENT : 1. This revn. appln. is filed by the pltf. On 23-12-1948 the pltf. paid Rs. 60 to the deft, who is a jobber in Malwa Mills, Indore on the assurance of the deft, that he would secure a permanent job for him in the Malwa Mills. The deft, gave temporary job to the pltf., for a month and few days and then abused the pltf. and dismissed him. Hence the pltf has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 60. The deft, denied the receipt of consideration of Rs. 60 and it was contended that the agreement is against the public policy and is void, The lower Ct. held that the pltf. paid Rs. 60 to the deft, for securing a permanent job but the agreement is void as it is opposed to public policy. 2. The only question for consideration in this revn. is whether the agreement is void as opposed to public policy. It appears to me that the payment of Rs. 60 by the pltf to the deft, was in the nature of bribe to secure an employment for the pltf. and, therefore, such an agreement would be opposed to public policy and void. A similar case arose in a reported decision of the Indore H. C., reported in 20 Indore Law Rep. 294. The facts of that case are on all fours with the facts of the present case. In 20 Indore Law Rep. also, the money was paid to secure an employment and it was held by the D. B. that an agreement to remunerate a person in order that he may exercise his influence to secure an employment is void on the ground of public policy under S. 23, Contrast Act, and no money paid under such agreement can be recovered. Mr. Hingorani contended that under S. 65, the pltf., can ask for the refund of the money paid by him to the deft. I fail to see how S. 65, Contract Act, can be applied to the facts of this case. Here the agreement which was in nature of bribe offered by the pltf. to the deft, to secure a job was at its inception void as being opposed to public policy. 3. Section 65, Contract Act, comes into play only when the agreement is discovered to be void or when the contract becomes void. Here the agreement which was in nature of bribe offered by the pltf. to the deft, to secure a job was at its inception void as being opposed to public policy. 3. Section 65, Contract Act, comes into play only when the agreement is discovered to be void or when the contract becomes void. Here the agreement was void from its inception. Mr. Hingorani relied on a decision retorted in Harnath Kuar v. Indar Bahadur Singh, A.I.R. (9) 1922 P. C. 403: (45 ALL. 179). In my opinion, the facts of that case are inapplicable to the facts of this case. The agreement, in the case in hand, is manifestly void from its inception. It was void because its subject-matter was incapable of being enforced because it was opposed to public policy and morality. I, therefore, dismiss the revn. appln. with costs.