JASRAJ INDER SINGH versus HEM RAJ MULTAN CHAND

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 14-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~-. 
,_ 
' ' 
JASRAJ INDER SINGH 
v. 
HEM RAJ MULTAN CHAND 
February 14, 1977 
(V. R. KRISHNA' IYER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.J 
973 
Parfllership Act-Rendition of accounts-Plaintiff had two shops at different 
places-Defendant had dealings at both p/aces--Plaintiff claimed account of 
one shop wit/1out set off from the other-If set off permissible. 
Jurisdiction of High Court-Remand order-Na/lire of-Lower Court, if 
bound by directions in remand order. 
The appellant (Plaintiff) had two shops, one in his village and the other in 
a city. 
The respondent (defendant) had dealings of various kinds with the 
appellant at both the places. 
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming a certain sum 
representing the net balance due to him from the respondent (defendant) on the 
village account. 
The defendant on the other hand claimed that, had the city 
account been taken into account, it was he who would be entitled to a larger 
sum from the plaintiff. 
The plaintiff claimed that the accounts of the village 
and city should not be mixed up. 
The trial Court held that, though the shoP§ 
were located at different places, they were owned by the same person and iii 
equity and law, set off was permissible and it accordingly granted a decree. 
On the plaii{tiff's appeal, the High Court held that rendition of city accounts 
was illegal and remanded the case to the trial Court. 
On remand, the 
trial 
Court held that while the plaintiff was right in his demand vis-a-vis the villa,ge 
·shop, the defendant was entitled to a certain sum from the city account and 
awarded a decree to the plaintiff in respect of the net balance. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
In appeal, the High Court held that after remand the trial Court had 
no 
E 
jurisdiction to look into the city accounts as a whole and on account of a mis-
apprehension of the observations of the remand order, an illegal decree had 
been passed in favour of the p\aintiff. 
Restoring the trial Court's order, 
HELD : The true nature of the action in this case was a suit on account fo 
the sum due on striking a balance. That itself was the cause of action. [98 lE] 
1. The trial Court's view that the entirety of account in the two shops could 
be viewed as a composite one, was sound. 
The parties are the same. 
There 
was only one person who owned the two shops and it is wrong to construe the 
situation as if there were two juristic entities. The defendant who dealt with the 
plaintiff in the two shops was . the same person. The dealings were either in one 
or the other shop. The artificial dissection of the transactions could not square 
up with the reality of the situation. 
[981C-DJ 
In the instant case there was no misapprehension on the part of the trial 
Court of the observations made by the High Court in its remand order. 
While 
directing remand, the High Court ordered that issue No. 6, namely, whether on 
making an account of the two shops of the plaintiff the defendants were entitled 
to a set off and thereafter to certain sums, should be decided by the trial Court. 
The trial Court naturally tQOk the view that the High Court having ordered an 
adjudication of th~ issue, vested it with jurisdiction to enquire into the 
city 
accounts in toto and pass a de'cree. If the village and city accounts had to be 
gone into, the decree passed was correct. 
[980G-H] 
2. Order 8, !}lie 6 CPC deals with a specific situation and does not prevent 
the Court, where the facts call for wider relief, from looking into the accounts 
in both places to do ultimate justice between the parties. 
[981-HJ 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 s.c.R. 
3: (a~ After rema1_1d by the High Court, the subordinate Court is bound by 
the direction .of the High Court, the same High Court hearing the matter on a 
11econd occas10n or any other Court of co-ordinate authority hearing the matter, 
cl!-nnot d~scard the earlier holding. 
Both a finding in a remand order cannot 
bmd a higher Court when it comes in appeal before it. 
(982A-BJ 
(b) The remand ord~r by the High Court is a finding at an intermediate 
stage of the same litigation. When it came to the trial Court and escalated tit 
the Hi&h Court, it ren_iained the same litigation. The appeal before the Supreme 
Court is from the smt as a whole and, therefore, the entire subject matter is 
available for adjudication before the Supreme Court. [982C-D] 
( c) The circumstance that the remanding judgment of the High Court was 
not appealed against, assuming that an a

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