Ujagar Singh and Others vs Union Bank of India, Jalandhar and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is Plaintiffs'' second appeal whose suit for rendition of accounts has been dismissed by the both the Courts below, as not maintainable.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants opened an account with the Union Bank of India on August 10, 1975, and deposited a sum of Rs. 96 000.00 for five years. It was agreed that interest at the rate of 10 percent, per annum shall be payable on the said amount. According to the plaint, interest was duly paid to the Plaintiffs up to February, 1977. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs took a loan of Rs. 50,000)/- from the Bank. It was agreed that the loan will carry interstat the rate of 12 percent, per annum. The Plaintiffs requested the Bank to account for the amount, but since no action was taken they (sic) present suit for rendition of accounts on August 27, 1981. In the written statement one of the objections raised was that thc suit for rendition of accounts was not maintainable. This plea prevailed with the Courts below and they dismissed the suit as such. Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiffs have filed this second appeal in this Court.

At the time of the motion hearing, the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Firm Ram Dev Jai Dev v. Seth Kaku (1950) 52 P. L. R. 31, was cited to contend that even if there was no relationship of principal and agent, the suit fx rendition of ,accounts was maintainable.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that if the Plaintiff, before instituting the suit could not, on his own, assess the amount due to him, the suit for rendition of accounts as such was not maintainable. Reliance in this behalf was pleaced on Anant Ram Munshi Vs. Spedding Dinga Singh and Company and Others, .

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar, I am of the considered opinion there was no bar to file the suit for rendition of accounts on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even in Anant Ram''s case (supra), in paragraph 6 of the judgment, it was observed:

There is no doubt that a suit for accounts is an extraordinary remedy which is available to the Plaintiff under special circumstances. Such a remedy is frequently resorted to in suits between principal and agent, between partners and other persons between whom there is a fiduciary relationship and privity of contract. This remedy is not confined to suits between principal and agent or between partners. In equity, a suit for accounts is entertainable where there are circumstances of special complication necessitating the taking of accounts.

The ordinary remedy at law is a claim for a sum certain. A sum certain may not be a predetermined specific amount if it is ascertainable, though not ascertained and it would be deemed to be a sum certain according to the well known maxim Id cerium est quod certum redii potest-which means, that is certain which may be rendered certain.

It could not be disputed on behalf of the Defendants-Respondents that the Bank is maintaining the accounts and is in a position to give the details thereof in Court The Plaintiffs will be entitled only to the sum which will be ultimately found due to him from the Bank In that eventuality, he will have to pay the Court fee also on the amount found due. Thus, the objection raised on behalf of the Defendants was most technical and has delayed the proceedings unnecessarily for more than five years. As observed earlier, from the pleadings of the parties, the suit for rendition of accounts is maintainable because the plantiffs are not in a position to know the exact amount due to them which they could claim straightaway in the suit. The amount will be determined only after going through the accounts to be submitted by the Bank.

Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for decision on merits in accordance with law. The parties have been directed to appear before the trial Court on March 9, 1987. In order to expedite the hearing of the suit, it is further directed that the parties will lead their evidence at their own responsibility, though dasti summonses, if required, may be given, as provided under Order XVI Rule 7-A, Code of Civil Procedure.