B B ALU CO Vs. SUNDERLAL AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defts. obtained a contract for the supply of fresh potatoes to Army and they entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs that the latter should make supplies on their behalf and would be entitled to collect 90% of the value of supplies made and that the balance 10% would be collected by Defts. who would deduct their commission and expenses and pay rest to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleging, that they were made certain payments, sued Defts. for accounts on the plea that same were known to and maintained by the Defts Defts. raised a preliminary objection that suit for accounts did not lie]. After detailing above, order proceeds.

(2.) There is no doubt and it was also common ground between the parties at the time of arguments that for the purpose of deciding maintainability of a suit only the allegations contained in the plaint are to be taken as correct. Of course, it would be different when the suit proceeds do merits. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding this issue assertions of the plaintiff are being presumed to be correct.

(3.) In Narandas Morards Gajiwala v. S. P. A. M. Papammal. AIR 1967 SC 333, it is laid down that according to Section 213 of the Contract Act a principal has legal right to bring a suit for rendition of account against an agent but that does not mean that in no other case suit for rendition of accounts can be brought because statute is not exhaustive and the right of the agent to sue the principal for rendition of accounts is equitable one arising under special circum- stances although it is not statutory right, It was further held that an agent can sue for rendition of accounts if he does not possess accounts to enable him to determine his claims for commission or where his remuneration depends upon the extent of dealing which are not known to him or where he cannot be aware of the extent of the amount due to him unless accounts of the principal are gone into.