JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--The present suit is for rendition of accounts. The Appellant-Plaintiff (hereinafter, `Plaintiff') in the suit, sought rendition of accounts on the ground that he was a commission agent for the Respondent-Defendant (hereinafter, `Defendant'). The suit was dismissed vide order dated 7th August, 2006, primarily on the ground that the suit as framed is not maintainable. The trial court held that since the Plaintiff knew the specific amount that was due and had quantified the same in the Plaint and in the notice, the suit for rendition of accounts is not maintainable. Relevant portions of the impugned order are set out below:

"....It is thus clear from a plain reading of the aforesaid paragraphs that the Plaintiff knew as to from which particular companies the amount had been by the Defendants and what amount had been paid. Surprisingly, the Plaintiff even after having a definite idea of the amount recoverable from the Defendant, had chosen to file the suit for rendition of accounts instead of making a prayer for recovery of specific amount. The judgment Gokal Jewellers (Supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. The suit, as framed, is not maintainable. This issue is decided in favour of the Defendants and against the plaintiff."

2. The present appeal impugning the above order was admitted on 21st January, 2008. Thereafter, none appeared for the Appellant on 5th August, 2011 and the matter remained on board.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent is present and has taken the court through the impugned order dated 7th August, 2006. The learned trial court has after perusing the pleadings and the documents on record arrived at a categorical conclusion that the Plaintiff knew as to what are the amounts due from the Defendants. In fact, the Plaintiff had adequate knowledge of the payments made by the various companies to the Defendants and the amount recoverable from the Defendants.

4. The legal position in respect of suits for rendition of accounts is clear and is settled by the Supreme Court in K.C. Skaria vs. The Government of State of Kerala, (2006) 2 SCC 285 (hereinafter, `KC Skaria') wherein the Court held as under:

"15. It is now well-settled that the right to claim rendition of accounts is an unusual form of relief granted only in certain specific cases and to be claimed when the relationship between the parties is such that the rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the plaintiff to satisfactorily assert his legal right (vide Jowahar Singh v. Haria Mal, (1899) 60 P.R. 1899, followed in Gulam Qutab-ud-din Khan v. Mian Faiz Bakhsh, AIR 1925 Lah 100, State of Jammu & Kashmir v. L. Tota Ram, AIR 1971 J&K 71, Triloki Nath Dhar v. Dharmarath Council, AIR 1975 JK 76). The right to seek rendition of accounts is recognized in law in administration suits for accounts of any property and for its administration, suits by a partner of a firm for dissolution of the partnership firm and accounts, suits by beneficiary against trustee/s, suits by a member of the joint-family against the Karta for partition and accounts, suits by a co-sharer against other co-sharer/s who has/have received the profits of a common property, suits by principal against an agent, and suits by a minor against a person who has received the funds of the minor.

16. Even where there is no specific provision for rendition of accounts, courts have recognised an equitable right to claim rendition of accounts. In Narandas Morardas Gajiwala v. S.P.A.M. Papammal, AIR 1967 SC 333, this Court considered the maintainability of a suit by an agent against the principal for accounts. Negativing the contention that only a principal can sue the agent for rendering proper accounts and not vice versa, (as Section 213 of the Contract Act provided that an agent is bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand without a corresponding provision in the Contract Act enabling the agent to sue the principal for a