FIRM MANCHHARAM INDERMAL Vs. MANAKLAL NAKHATMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point for decision in this appeal by the plaintiff who have lost their suit in both the courts below is whether Ex. 1, the basis of the suit is an account stated, and consequently the suit is within limitation

(2.) THE respondent has not appeared inspite of service, and, therefore, I have heard the appeal exparte.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has urged that though Ex. 1 itself does not contain the account, that is, the cross items after adjusting which the balance was struck, but it is clear from the statement of Bhojraj that the balance in Ex. 1 had been struck by the defendant Nakhatmal after going into the accounts contained in the accounts books of the parties and after understanding the same. Bhojraj has also stated that Ex. 1 was written by the defendant Nakhatmal at his shop in the presence of himself, Champalal and Inder Mai after comparing the accounts contained in the Bahis. On the basis of the statement of Bhojraj, it is argued that the irresistible conclusion in the facts and circumstances of the present case is that the balance in Ex. 1 was struck by the defendant after admitting the correctness of accounts between the parties which consisted of crossitems. It is submitted that what is of the essence of the account stated is the striking of a balance, and it is not at all necessary that items on either side must appear in the document itself. In support of his contention learned Counsel has relied upon Narendra Nath v. Shasabindoo Nath AIR 1941 Cal. 595 Siqueira v. Noronha AIR 1934 C.P. 144, Bishunchand v. Girdharilal AIR 1934 P.C. 147, Gordon Woodroffe and Co. v. S.k.M.A. Majid and Co. 0065/1966 : AIR1967SC181 , Tarachand v. Mst. Dhapu ILR 7 Raj. 483 and Ramdayal v. Maji Deoriji of Riyan 1955 RLW 265.