GOURA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. GOPINATH PATRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner in this Civil Revision.

(2.) AFTER the preliminary decree in a suit for accounts, plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court for a special direction as envisaged under Order 20, Rule 17, C. P. C., to direct the Commissioner for taking all the accounts in the mode as indicated in the application which is not necessary to be elaborated in this order. Amongst other reasons, the trial Court rejected the application, stating : 'Order 20, Rule 17, C. P. C., has specifically stated that the Court may give a special direction regarding to the mode in which the account to be taken, while one special direction has already been given by the learned Sub -judge, the contention of the learned lawyer for the plaintiff to issue further special direction in contrary to the direction already given by the learned Sub -Judge may not be accepted.'

(3.) MR . B. B. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the decree no special direction was given excepting that accounts shall be rendered by the defendant No. 1 within three months failing which a Commissioner is to be appointed to take the accounts. This cannot be said to be a special direction. In all account suits in the preliminary decree, a direction of this nature as given by the trial Court is common and it cannot be said to be a special direction.