MUSHAT CLOTH STORES Vs. SHIVRATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to revise an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Second class, Ratlam, directing the plaintiff-applicant to produce in the Court his account books for the last ten years for inspection and determination of the question whether the amount claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant includes excess interest and compound interest.

(2.) THE plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of Rs. 601/- said to have been acknowledged by the defendant "as due from him after taking an account of the dealings between the parties with regard to purchases of cloth from time to time. The plea of: the defendant inter alia is that the sum acknowledged by him included excess interest and compound interest and that the accounts were not explained to him. On these pleadings of the parties, the lower Court framed an issue as to whether the amount of Rs. 601/- included a sum in the neighbourhood of Rs. 300/- by way of interest and whether the defendant's signature on the acknowledgment was obtained without explaining the accounts to him. It was in connection with this issue that the lower Court made the order sought to be revised.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for- the parties. In my judgment, this petition must be accepted. It is now firmly established by numerous authorities that when accounts are settled between the parties and parties agree to take a gross sum as the balance, then the settled account is binding on the parties and it cannot be reopened on any ground except fraud or mistake (see Radhikaprasad Dani v. Nandkumar, ILR 1944 Nag 63: AIR 1944 Nag 7 (A); Bajaranglal v. Anandilal, ILR 1944 Nag 101 (AIR 1944 Nag 124 (B) and Henry Mckellar v. ' John Wallace, 5 Moo ind App 372 (PC) (C ). A party who wishes to reopen a settled account must, therefore, show that there was fraud or substantial mistake when the accounts were settled. In the present case, it is not the plea of the defendant that there was any fraud or mistake when he, after the settlement of accounts, acknowledges Rs. 601/- as due from him, the defendant has thus no right to claim reopening of the account and consequently a right to demand production of the plaintiff's account books.