RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which arises in this appeal is as to whether a suit for accounts can be maintained except when there is specified relationship between the parties.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is that he along with the proforma defendant Vishwanath had taken up a contract from the State of Rajasthan for completion' Hon of works specified in the plaint. The plaintiff and the proforma defendant bad completed the works in respect of which the contract was given to them, but they have not been paid the full amount in respect of the work done by them and a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - has been wrongly deducted by the defendant The plaintiff also alleged that according to the terms of the contract she defendant was to supply material including coal and machinery like pumps, which the defendants provided but no proper accounting bad been made. The plaintiff and his partner bad also deposited security deposits with the defendant which have not been refunded. The plaintiff requested the State Government to clear the accounts and make payment of the amount as may he found due to the plaintiff and his partner together with the amount of security deposits, but the defendant informed the plaintiff by his letter dated July 27, 1960 that as certain amounts lying to the amount of the plaintiff were under objection, no payment could be made to him. There was a stipulation about arbitration in the contract and the parties approached the Superintending Engineer for arbitration who gave an award, but the Court subsequently set the award given by the Superintending Engineer aside. As such the plaintiff filed a suit for accounts praying that a decree may be passed in his favour in respect of such amount as may be found due to him from the defendant State, together with interest there on 6% per annum.

(3.) THE Munsif, Bhadra held that a suit for accounts was maintainable in the circumstances of the case and passed a decree in terms of Order 20 Rule 16 CPC and directed that a Commissioner be appointed to go into the accounts and ascertain the amount payable to the plaintiff after taking the accounts The first appellate court, namely, the Additional District Judge Shri Ganganagar, bow ever, took a different view and held that a suit for accounts was not maintainable in the present case and that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for a specific sum, after payment of court fees in respect thereof.