HULAS RAI BAIJ NATH versus FIRM K. B. BASS & CO ..

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 03-05-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HULAS RAI BAIJ NATH 
v. 
FIRM K. B. BASS & CO .. 
May 3, 1967 
[R. S. BACHAWAT, J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J 
Code cf Ciril Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908). 0.23 r. 1-"·1'! ''' 
rendition of accozmt,~Defendant pleads accounts settled, money due 
10 him, and prays for decree of amount due-Preliminary decree 
nat 
passed-Whether plaintiff can withdraw suit. 
In a suit for rendition of accounts, the 
defendant pleaded 
that 
accounts, had been settled and he was to get certain money from the 
plaintiff; that there could be no rendition of accounts; and that if the 
court concluded that rendition of account was necessary, a decree for 
the amount which may be found due to the defendant with costs end 
interest may be passed in favour of the defendant after necessary court• 
fee was realised from the defendant. While no preliminary decree for 
rendition of accounts had been passed, and, in fact, the defendant was 
still contending that there .could be no rendition of accounts in the suit, 
the plaintiff alplied far withdrawal of the suit. The defendant opposed 
the withdrawa , claiming that in a suit of this nature, his position became 
that of a plaintiff and he became entitled to have the accounting done 
and to obtain a decree, and the withdrawal after protracted duration was 
to defeat this right of the defendant. 
The trial Court 
allowed 
the 
withdrawal, which was upheld by the High Court. In appeal by the 
defendant, this Court 
HELD : At the stage of withdrawal of the suit, no vested right in 
favour of the defendant had come into existence and there was no ground 
on which the Court could refuse to allow withdrawal of the suit. 
There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which requires 
the Court to refuse permission to \Vithdra\V the suit in such circumstances 
and to compel the plaintiff to proceed with it. It is, of course, possible 
that different considerations may arise where a set-off may have been 
claimed under 0.8, C.P.C., or a counter-claim may have been filed, if 
permissible by the procedural law applicable t<> proceedings governing 
the suit. In the present case, the pleadings did not amount to a claim for 
set-off. 
Even if it be assumed that the> defendant could have claimed 
a decree for the amount found due to him after rendition of accounts, 
no such right can possibly be held to ei<ist before the Court passed a pre-
liminary decree for ·rendition of accounts. In the case of a suit between 
princiJ?al and agent, it is the principal alone who bas normally the right 
to claun rendition of accounts from the ageot. The agent canne>t ordi· 
nadly claim a decree for rendition of accounts from the principal and, 
in fact, in the suit, the defendant, who was the agent of the respondent, 
did not claim any reJ1dition of accounts from the plaintiff. 
[888F-H; 
889B-D] 
Seet!tc.i Ac/ii v. Meyappa C!tettiar a11<l Others, A.I.R. 1934 Mad. 337. 
refered to 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 897 ()f 
1964. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
~ 
a; 
HULAS RAJ BAIJ NATH v. K. B. BASS (Bhargava, J.) 
887 
A 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 14, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revi· 
sion No. 686 of 1953. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
TJishan Narain and M. I. Khowa;a, for the appellant. 
Niren De. 
Addi. Solicitor-General, M. V. 
Goswami and 
Y ogeshwar Parshad, for the respondent. 
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 
th<l 
appellant was the commission agent of the respondent and that 
the accounts between respondent as the principal and appellant 
as the agent had not been settled since the dealings began in the 
year 1941 onwards. Tentatively, a sum of Rs. 2, 100 / - was claimed 
in the plaint. 
In the written statement filed . on behalf of the 
appellant, the suit was contested on various grounds; but for the 
purposes of this appeal, we need mention the pleas taken in. only 
two paragraphs 8 and 11. In paragraph 8, it was pleaded that 
one Lala Shiva Charan, a partner of the respondent firm, had 
come with a Munim in the month of Agahan last and accouilt5 
were fully explained to him as worked out up to Kartik Sudi 15. 
Sambat 2007. In that statement of account, a sum of 
Rs. 10,677-14-3 wa5 found due to the appellant from the respon-
dent and the representativ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.