MOHINDER SINGH JAGGI Vs. DATA RAM JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent, Data Ram Jagannath, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, against the appellant, Mohinder Singh Jaggi, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, for realisation of Rupees 9385.09 towards principal and Rupees 1338.54 towards interest at 12 Per Cent per annum, on Khata account. Before the Trial Court the defendant raised a counter claim in his additional written statement claiming accounts from the plaintiff in respect of the goods which came into their possession in pursuance of an agreement.

(2.) THE Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit against the defendant but also accepted the cross-claim of the defendant for accounts and passed a preliminary decree for accounts to be rendered by the plaintiff for the goods lying in his custody. THE Trial Court observed that the details of the decree would be worked out in the final decree.

(3.) IN the written statement dated 16/04/1962, the defendant pleaded in para 5 "that without going to the account of both the parties and without settlement of account the plaintiffs cannot sue for any definite amount, hence, the plaintiffs without bringing a suit for account and without settlement of account cannot bring this suit in the present form for a definite sum of money." The defendant further denied that there was any agreement for advancing loans as such, as alleged by the plaintiff. It was further alleged in Para 18 that "the true facts of the case are that the defendant who carries on business of Motor Accessories is to place orders to outside stations and receives them through Railway and through Banks. that at times of necessities in order to release the said goods from Banks the defendant on various occasions approached Sri Baij Nath who released the R/R of the defendant on payment and against the said payment the plaintiff used to retain the goods. Subsequently the defendant either released the goods or any part thereof on payment within a time required by the plaintiff No. or the plaintiff No. sold the goods so retained by him and realised his dues." (sic) It was further allege that the defendant was not liable to pay the sum of Rupees 26,654,44; rather the plaintiff was liable to pay the said amount with interest to the defendant. It was also alleged that certain payments had not been accounted for.