In that statement of account, a sum of Rs.
The main ground taken for companytesting this application for withdrawal was that, in a suit of this nature, it is permissible to pass a decree in favour of the defendant if, on accounting, something is found due to him against the plaintiff, and it followed that, if the defendant paid companyrt fee on the amount which was found due to him from the plaintiff, his position became that of ,A plaintiff himself and he became entitled to have the accounting done and to obtain a decree.
The appellant filed a revision in the High Court of Allahabad against this order, with a prayer that the High Court may set aside the order of the trial Court and remand the suit for trial according to law.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 14, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revi sion No.
Some of the issues were even given up during the trial.
686 of 1953.
A number of issues were framed and the case was taken up for recording of evidence on several dates of hearing.
897 of 1964.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In paragraph 8, it was pleaded that one Lala Shiva Charan, a partner of the respondent firm, had companye with a Munim in the month of Agahan last and account.,
Bishan Narain and M. I. Khowaja, for the appellant.
Ultimately, on 5th May, 1953, after a companysiderable amount of evidence had been recorded, an application was presented on behalf of the plaintiff respondent, for withdrawal of the suit.
In paragraph I 1, the appellant pleaded that if, in the opinion of the companyrt, the companyrt has jurisdiction to try the suit and it is necessary to tender the accounts, it is equitable that a decree for the amount which may be found due to the companytesting defendant, after rendition of accounts, together with companyts and interest be passed in favour of the companytesting defendant, after necessary companyrt fee being realized from the defendant.
10,677 14 3 was found due to the appellant from the respondent and the representatives of the respondent asked for two months time for making the payment of the amount found due.
Tentatively, a sum of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The respondent firm, K. B. Bass Co., instituted a suit on 13th April, 1951, for rendition of accounts against the appellant firm, Messrs Hulas Rai Baij Nath, alleging that the appellant was the companymission agent of the respondent and that the accounts between respondent as the principal and appellant as the agent had number been settled since the dealings be an in the year 1941 onwards.
The appellant filed an application objecting to this application for with.
CI/67 13 drawal.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, the suit was companytested on various grounds but for the purposes of this appeal, we need mention the pleas taken in only two paragraphs 8 and I 1.
The High Court dismissed the application for revision and the appellant has number companye tip to this Court in this appeal by special leave.
Solicitor General, M. V. Goswami and Yogeshawr Parshad, for the respondent.
Niren De.
2,100/ was claimed in the plaint.
were fully explained to him as worked out upto Kartik Sudi 15.
Sambat 2007.
