PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD Vs. KIRPA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will deal with two appeals in which a similar point of law arises. Two suits were instituted against the Punjab National Bank Limited of Delhi, the first by the members of a joint Hindu Family firm trading under the name of Kirpa Ram-Wishan Das, and the second by the members of a joint Hindu family firm trading under the name of Mehnga Ram-Jiwan Das. Both the suits were for rendition of accounts. In the case of the firm Kirpa Ram-Wishan Das the allegation was that the firm had been in business before the partition at Vihari in Multan District, and had a cash credit account which started in December 1946 with the Vihari branch of the defendant bank, in which the bank advanced various sums to the firm, which in turn pledged goods of various kinds with the bank as security. The case of the firm was that in August 1947 goods of various kinds valued at Rs. 8,79,030/-were lying pledged with the bank, and while the plaintiff firm was of the opinion that the pledged goods exceeded in value the amount due at that time from the plaintiff firm to the bank, it had no means of ascertaining what this sum was in the absence of its own account books and also of knowledge of how the pledged goods liad been treated in the accounts of the bank, and therefore it was prayed that a decree for rendition of accounts should be granted, followed in due course by a decree for the amount found to be due to the plaintiff from the bank.

(2.) THE second suit was of a similar type, the firm which worked at Mian Channu, also in Multan district, having opened a cash credit account with the branch of the bank there in 1945. No specific allegation was made by this plaintiff regarding the amount of the goods lying pledged with the bank, and the suit was filed for rendition of accounts after the bank had sent a demand for Rs. 46,000/- to the plaintiff without making any mention of the pledged goods. In both the suits the defendant bank raised preliminary objections that a suit for accounts did not lie and that in each case the guarantee broker was a necessary party.

(3.) IN the suit of Messrs. Kirpa Ram Wishan Das the trial Judge, Mr. A. N. Bhanot, overruled the defendant's objection that the guarantee broker was a necessary party, but, holding that a suit for accounts did not lie, dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed, and by his order dated 11-2-1952 the learned second additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court that a suit for accounts did not lie, and remanded the suit for decision on the merits.