RAMACHANDRA MADHAVADOSS CO BY PARTNER K RAGHUNATHA MALLAYYA Vs. MOOVAKAT MOIDUNKUTTI BIRANKUTTI AND BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which I have been called upon to decide in this revision relates to the correctness of the order passed by the District Munsif of Mangalore who, in view of an objection raised on behalf of the defendant, refused to entertain the suit on the ground that being one for accounts it was barred under Art. 31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(2.) The suit was, as the plaint would show, for a specific sum of money which was alleged to be due to the plaintiff by the defendant in regard to certain dealings mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The District Munsif examined the plaintiff and finding that four heads of accounts were clubbed together in a single katha maintained by the plaintiff firm in its books, out of which two only could be properly recovered on the Small Cause Side, returned the whole plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

(3.) Having heard the Counsel for the parties at some length, I am clearly of the opinion that this is not a suit for accounts within the meaning of Art. 31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and is, as framed, maintainable by the Court of Small Causes. " A suit for accounts " as observed by Sankaran Nair, J., in Konduru Runga Reddi V/s. Subbiah Setty (1904) I.L.R. 28 Mad. 394: is a special form of suit. It does not mean that whenever accounts have to be looked into in order to ascertain the amount due by one party to the other that the suit should be technically called a suit for accounts.