(1.) The petitioner applies for special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution, against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, dated December 16, 1963 in Civil First Appeal No. 54 of 1956 on two grounds:
(2.) The material facts bearing on the plea raised are these. The petitioner commenced on July 2, 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer, an action against the respondents claiming a decree for Rs.10,665 and for rendition of accounts in respect of the balance of sale proceeds of 104 bales of cotton purchased by him were sold by the respondents as his agents on May 14, 1948 for Rs. 27,267-13-6 and without settling the account the respondents delivered towards that amount a demand draft for Rs. 11,000 which was encashed and four cheques of the aggregate value of Rs. 13,000 which because of lack of arrangement with the respondents bankers were not encashed, and the petitioner on that account was entitled to receive from the respondents Rs. 10,665 being the amount due on the foot of dishonoured cheques and interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum between July 2, 1947 to July 1, 1951, less Rs. 4,000 subsequently received by him. The petitioner also claimed a decree for the balance of the price, after giving credit for commission, dalali and godown charges incurred by the respondents as his agents and as he was not in a position to know the amounts due to or disbursed by the respondents, he claimed decree for rendition of account. The subject-matter of the suit was, therefore, a claim for Rs. 10,665 due to the petitioner on a cause of action arising on cheques dishonoured, and a claim of the balance of the price due as may be ascertained on taking accounts.
(3.) The Trial Court passed a decree directing that account be taken for ascertaining the amount due in respect of the entire transaction of 104 bales and for taking accounts appointed a Commissioner. The High Court of Rajasthan reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit holding that the transaction in respect of which the claim was made by the petitioner were those of an unregistered firm constituted by the petitioner and another person named Duli Chand and; the suit was barred because the firm was not registered. An application filed by the petitioner for certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution was rejected by the High Court.