GOURI SHANKAR PANDEY Vs. RUPAK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18th January, 1982, passed in Money Appeal No. 13 of 1978 by Sri. R. P. Srivastava, 1st Additional District Judge, Patna, whereby he has been pleased to reverse the findings of the Additional Sub- Judge 1st, Patna, given in Money Suit No. 164 of 1965/1 of 1978 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff Gauri Shankar Pandey was the Manager and agent of M/s. Rupak Limited, a Public Limited Company having its office at Rupak Cinema Building, Bakerganj, Patna. According to the plaintiff, he worked as Manager of the Company till 25-4-59 though the defendant wrongly showed his presence and employment as such till 8-2-59 and his salary was Rs. 200/- per month. According to the defendant, the plaintiff worked as Manager of the Company till 8th February, 1959 and his salary was Rs. 150/- per month. The plaintiff has further alleged that his accounts has not been settled and he has not been paid his dues. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was being paid advances and his salary used to be credited with the defendant for which the defendant used to maintain accounts. The defendant in spite of the request by the plaintiff to show and render accounts so that final adjustment be made refused to do so and he did not offer or agree to pay the money due to the plaintiff. It was claimed that the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 9419/- from the defendant and this figure can be ascertained only on rendition of account on the basis of the registers of the defendant showing advances and adjustments. It was also claimed that the defendant is the plaintiffs agent for the purpose of maintaining the accounts for and on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant-company was under the management of receiver appointed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna from April 1959 to 20-10-63. The plaintiff preferred his claim before the High Court but vide order dated 11-8-59 the Hon'ble Court directed that the plaintiffs claim would rank as of an unsecured creditor. Under the above circumstances it was alleged that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for rendition of accounts against the defendant in respect of his dues, if any, and prayer was made to pass a preliminary decree for accounts and for final decree for such sum as may be ascertained and found due on rendition of accounts with interest at 9% per annum pendente lite and future with costs.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement alleged that the suit as framed was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no cause of action for the same. The suit was barred by limitation. In Pauper Misc. Case No. 28/66 the plaintiff himself stated that his salary was Rs. 150/- per month. The plaintiff was in service of the defendant at this rate till the period written in the Register (8th February 1959). It was also alleged that the plaintiff took regular advances on account of his salary, his account was squared, paid up and closed up long back and nothing was due to him. With such allegation it was alleged that the plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit which is fit to be dismissed with costs.