K K ABDUL RAHIMAN ROWTHER Vs. MJJAMALLUDDIN SAHIB AND CO THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNERS MUTHUKRISHNAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question I have to decide is, whether the suit which has given rise to this petition, is exempted from the cognisance of a Provincial Small Cause Court. That turns upon the meaning of the words "suit for an account" occurring in Art. 31 of the Second Schedule to that Act. The course of, dealings was as follows: - The plaintiff's firm would advance monies to the defendant and the latter would consign goods for sale on commission. The defendant would be credited with the sale proceeds and debited with the commission and various kinds of charges. The plaintiff's firm thus held a dual character of creditor and agent, the defendant's position being that of debtor and principal. The question that has to be determined is, whether the plaintiff's suit, brought professedly for a specific amount is cognizable by a Provincial Small Cause Court. It is difficult, as has been observed in one of the cases cited before me, to reconcile the decisions on the point; nor is it possible to deduce therefrom a rule of general application. The present suit having been brought by an agent, Mr. Narasaraju for the plaintiff contends that actions by agents stand on a different footing from actions by principals. His contention is that where an agent sues, there can be no question of the defendant being required to render an account, whereas if the action is by the principal, the suit becomes one " for an account". There is an observation of Mookerjee, J., which lends apparent support to this contention. The learned Judge observes: There cannot in essence be a suit for accounts by the plaintiff against the defendant unless the defendant is under a liability to render accounts to the plaintiff." Kshetranath Banerjee V/s. Kalidasi Dasi (1916) 27 C.L.J. 96.

(2.) Although the statement seems general, it is difficult to believe that it was intended to embody an infallible test. The actual point decided in the case was, that a suit for the recovery of a specific sum of money, does not assume the character of a suit for accounts, merely because for the deciding of the question in controversy, accounts may have to be examined. Indeed, that Mr. Justice Mookerjee did not intend to lay down any general or universal test, appears clearly from observations made in an earlier case by a Bench, of which the learned Judge was a member Kailas Chandra V/s. Kiranenda Ghosh (1911) 10 I.C. 883. "If in order to grant relief to the plaintiff," the Bench observes: it is necessary to take accounts, the suit is one for account within the meaning of Art. 31, although the plaintiff may have chosen to put a definite money value upon the claim.

(3.) Then the learned Judges go on to express the same idea even more clearly: Whether the suit is one for account ... must depend upon the relation in which the parties stand to each other, and the nature of the investigation required to afford relief to the plaintiff.