LAWS(J&K)-1974-9-4

TRILOKI NATH DHAR Vs. DHARMARTH COUNCIL, SRINAGAR

Decided On September 20, 1974
Triloki Nath Dhar Appellant
V/S
Dharmarth Council, Srinagar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffâ„¢s second appeal and arises out of a suit for rendition of accounts brought by him in the court of City Munsiff Srinagar. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the claim for rendition of accounts did not lie. On appeal the Additional District Judge, Srinagar affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE appeal was originally heard by His Lordship the Honâ„¢ble Chief Justice who was of the view that the appeal involved a substantial question of law as to the maintainability of a suit for accounts by an agent against the principal. The soundness of the view taken by a Division Bench of this court in A.I.R. 1971 J&K 71 was challenged before His Lordship. The case was, therefore, referred to the Full Bench. This is how the case has come before us.

(3.) BRIEFLY speaking the facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant brought a suit for rendition of accounts. The plaintiff averred that in the year 1956 -57 tenders were invited by Mohtmim Dharmarth defendant respondent for the construction of two works namely ; (1) "Construction of office building at Basant Bagh" and (2) "Construction of surrounding wall Samadhi Rambagh". Consequent upon the submission of tender by the appellant which was accepted, the appellant deposited Rs. 400/ - as earnest money with the defendant respondent and executed agreements for" the construction of the aforesaid works. The appellant completed both the works in accordance with the terms of the agreements and the defendant respondent paid some amount of money to him on account, but no accounts were settled. The plaintiff further averred that there were huge outstandings against the defendant on account of the said -works. The plaintiff was not certain about the actual outstanding due to him. Although he called upon the defendant to settle accounts with him, there was no response from the defendantâ„¢s side. Hence the suit.