Judgment :- 1. This revision petition by the plaintiff is against the decree of the Munsiff's Court, Attingal, in exercise of powers as a Small Cause Court. The petitioner had claimed money for doing shanthi in a temple belonging to the defendant, and had alleged that his elder brother was doing so till he passed away. His case further is that the defendant wanted the petitioner to do Shanthi agreeing to pay monthly remuneration of Rs. 20, that the remuneration was annually payable, that the petitioner conducted Shanthi through his manager, but the defendant had not paid anything and, therefore, the claim. In an earlier notice the defendant had admitted remuneration to be Rs. 7/- per mensem, but in the written statement denied the agreement. The lower court had rejected the evidence of the witnesses in support of the claim and had accepted the defence of there being no agreement. It has also accepted the defendant's case that when the notice was sent the defendant was suffering from diabetes, and had directed the manager to send the notice, who had acted contrary to instructions. 2. I entertain grave doubts about the correctness of the aforesaid conclusion; for had the notice been sent contrary to instruction appropriate steps to repudiate what had been wrongly put in the notice would be taken after the defendant had been informed, but that had not been done. Be that as it may, I think the petitioner's claim ought not to be decreed, on another legal ground. 3. It is clear from the evidence that the petitioner is a Government servant, and notwithstanding the rule that no Government servant shall except with the previous sanction of the Government engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any employment, he had entered into the agreement, on which he rests his claim. Perhaps due to such restriction he had asked the manager to do the Shanti. In other words, the contract is contrary to the rule restraining a public servant from undertaking another employment during the period of service with the Government, and is therefore void, there being no averment about the agreement being with Government sanction. The petitioner's learned advocate has, however, urged that the direction not being statutory would not vitiate the agreement under S.23 of the Contract Act, and has in support relied on Ramakrishna Trimbak v. Narayan (ILR. 40 Born. The petitioner's learned advocate has, however, urged that the direction not being statutory would not vitiate the agreement under S.23 of the Contract Act, and has in support relied on Ramakrishna Trimbak v. Narayan (ILR. 40 Born. 126), Dharwar Bank v. Md. Havati (AIR. 1923 Calcutta 154), Direndra Kumar v. Chandra Kantha (AIR. 1931 Born. 269) and Bhagwan Dei v. Murari Lal (ILR. 39 Allahabad 51). The aforesaid cases are about public servants purchasing properties in contravention of the rule forbidding acquisition by public servants during their tenures, in places where the properties be situated, and the courts notwithstanding the rule had held that suits to claim the properties would not be rejected. They, however, do not lay down that where restraints on the public servants during their service be still operative, the courts would decree damages for failure to perform the agreement so forbidden. I respectfully agree with Fletcher, J., in The Sitarampur Coal Co., Ltd., v. T.H. Colley (13 Calcutta Weekly Notes, 59 at p. 62) that if a public servant enters into a contract, which casts on him to his knowledge something that would conflict with the duties he owes to the public, such a contract is void. In that case the suit was to recover damages from the defendant, who was employed for reward by the plaintiff company as their agent for the purchase of some boilers, and was alleged to have failed to use reasonable diligence and care in conducting the purchase of one of the boilers, which had caused the company losses. The defendant was then engaged by the Bengal Government in the office of the Commissioners for the Inspection of Steam Boilers, and in these circumstances, Fletcher, J., has observed as follows: - "The public servant would not dare to move even to sue for his commission, if unpaid, for fear of the fact of the contract being discovered by his superiors, and any liability that he might be under by virtue of the contract, if valid, he would probably endeavour, if he could, to hide it by committing a breach of the duty he owed to the public. I, therefore, hold that the contract sued upon is void. The suit accordingly fails and must be dismissed." The danger of enforcing claims in contravention of the restraints on the public servant is obvious. I, therefore, hold that the contract sued upon is void. The suit accordingly fails and must be dismissed." The danger of enforcing claims in contravention of the restraints on the public servant is obvious. Such rules form parts of the service contracts and agreement to do what constitute breaches of the agreement would certainly defeat the provision of the law relating to contract. Such agreement would clearly be hit by S.23 and void. For these reasons, I think the contract is void and the suit fails. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, but without costs. Dismissed.