Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Gh. Mohammad Mir, J.
Aisha & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K - Respondent
CSA No. 72/1975
Decided On : 12 August, 1977
AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - SUIT FOR RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS - AMENDMENT TO CLAIM SPECIFIC AMOUNT - DELAY IN APPLICATION - CHANGE IN CAUSE OF ACTION - INJUSTICE TO OPPOSITE PARTY - REJECTION OF AMENDMENT - SUIT FOR RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS AGAINST STATE - NOT MAINTAINABLE - CONTRACTOR PRESUMED TO KNOW SPECIFIC AMOUNT DUE - SUIT FOR SPECIFIC AMOUNT BARRED BY LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a contractor, filed a suit against the State for rendition of accounts for construction work on a bridge. The State raised an objection to the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the plaintiff should have sued for a specific amount. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the District Judge reversed the decision and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suit for rendition of accounts was not maintainable against the State. The court found that the plaintiff must be presumed to have known the specific amount due to him and should have sued for that amount. The court also found that the plaintiff had caused undue delay in applying for an amendment to the plaint to claim a specific amount, and that such an amendment would cause injustice to the State as the suit for a specific amount was now barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether a suit for rendition of accounts is maintainable against the State for construction work on a bridge? 2. Whether the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint to claim a specific amount should be allowed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit for rendition of accounts is not maintainable against the State for construction work on a bridge because the contractor must be presumed to have known the specific amount due to him and should have sued for that amount. 2. The plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint to claim a specific amount should be rejected because it was made after a long delay and would cause injustice to the State as the suit for a specific amount was now barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
2. The main contention of the defendant-respondent in the first appellate court was that the suit for rendition of accounts was not maintainable as the plaintiff-appellant was in possession of accounts himself and all accounts being within his knowledge the suit for accounts was not maintainable. It was contended that if at all, the suit should have been for the recovery of a specific amount. The Learned District Judge upheld the contention of the State and vide its order dated 9-12-1974 set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and ordered that the suit was not maintainable and therefore dismissed the same. It was against this order that this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant.
3. The main ground urged in this appeal was that the reliance placed on a judgment of this court by the District Judge, Srinagar in disposing of the first appeal was not in accordance with law and that the facts of the case relied upon by the first appellate court were entirely different from the facts appearing in the instant case. It was submitted that in view of the terms of the agreement between the parties an agency has been created and on the facts of the present case the agent was legally entitled to ask his principal for accounts. The appeal was instituted in this court on 27-2-1975. During the pendency of the appeal it appears an application was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant on 26-8-1976 with the submission that the matter under consideration in appeal was of far reaching importance inasmuch as important question of law were involved and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court relied upon by the District Judge requires further consideration as the same appeared to be contrary to the judgment given by the Supreme Court in a case involving similar questions of law and facts. It was prayed that the matter be referred to a larger bench so that the m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
