Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Janki Nath Bhat,Mian Jalal-ud-Din, JJ.
State Of J&K - Appellant
Versus
L. Tota Ram - Respondent
Ist Appeal No. 33/1966
Decided On : 10 July, 1970
SUIT FOR ACCOUNTS - VALUATION - ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - DUTY TO RENDER ACCOUNT - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES - SPECIFIC SUM CLAIMABLE - AMENDMENT OF SUIT - COURT FEES - JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a contractor, filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the State for construction work, valuing the suit at Rs. 5,100/- for court fees and jurisdiction. The State objected to the valuation, arguing that it was arbitrary and unreasonable. The trial court rejected the objection and framed several issues, including whether the suit for accounts was maintainable when neither the plaintiff nor the Executive Engineer could state the exact amount due.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the valuation of the suit was indeed arbitrary and unreasonable, as the plaintiff had claimed specific amounts in the plaint that exceeded the valuation placed on the suit. The court also held that a suit for accounts was not maintainable in this case, as the plaintiff had not established that the State had a duty to render an account or that the relationship between the parties was such that an account was the only way to assert the plaintiff's legal rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the valuation of the suit for accounts was arbitrary and unreasonable? 2. Whether a suit for accounts was maintainable in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the valuation of the suit was arbitrary and unreasonable because the plaintiff had claimed specific amounts in the plaint that exceeded the valuation placed on the suit. This indicated that the plaintiff had not made a genuine attempt to estimate the relief sought and that the valuation was merely a device to avoid paying the appropriate court fees. 2. The court held that a suit for accounts was not maintainable in this case because the plaintiff had not established that the State had a duty to render an account or that the relationship between the parties was such that an account was the only way to assert the plaintiff's legal rights. The court noted that the plaintiff could have brought a suit for a specific sum of money instead.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the preliminary decree passed by the trial court, and held that the suit for accounts was not maintainable in its present form. The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the suit and fix a proper valuation on his claim, but required him to pay Rs. 300/- as costs to the State.
2. The respondent, L. Tota Ram brought a suit for rendition of accounts relating to construction work of motor road from Forebay to Power House site Chenani Hydel Project in the year 1963 against the appellant, the State, valuing the suit for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 5,100/-. The plaintiff respondent among other things alleged that he was allotted work of motor road from Forebay to Power House Site Chenani Hydel Project from R. D. O. to R. D. 20000 by the Superintending Engineer Electrical Project Circle. An agreement was drawn up according to the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties in the year 1963. The original agreement being with the department Subsequently under pressure the plain tiff-respondent was made to execute another agreement on 29-12-1964. The plaintiff-respondent also constructed a Zig in the first mile of the road. In paragraph 6 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that the measurements of the work done by him have been recorded in the relevant books and registers of the department and all such entries have also been signed by him time and again in token of the verification thereof." The plaintiff goes on to state that the plaintiff suffered on account of the treatment of the department with him and he had to incur a sum of Rs. 15.000/- for extra labour The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 700/- from the department as felling charges of some trees. The plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the sum due to him from the department.
3. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants-appellant. Among other objections, a preliminary objection was taken that the suit for accounts was not maintainable as the defendants were not the accounting parties. The plaintiff should have filed a suit for money. Various other pleas were taken which need not be enumerated in detail. The then learned District Judge examined the plaintiff and the Superintending and the Executive Engineers of the department under Order 10, C. P. C. A large number of issues were framed. Firstly a preliminary issue was raised which reads as under:
4. Whether the valuation put by the plaintiff in a suit for accounts for the purposes of court-fee and -jurisdiction can be challenged? ...... O. P. D.
5. After hearing arguments the learned District Judge decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff on 8-3-1966. Then on 9-3-1966 the learned Judge framed as many as 17 issues. The issues are not either happily worded or drafted and some of them are obviously unnecessary. When these issues were struck the counsel for the defendant-State put in an application for amendment of the issues and deletion of some issues. That application was rejected by the learned Judge on 27-4-1966. Against this order a revision petition No. 81 was filed by the defendant-State in this court. By another order of the same date the learned District Judge directed that an amount of Rs. 18572.20 lying in deposit with the Department should be deposited in the Court. Against that order also revision No. 82 was presented in this court. While these revisions were pending in this court an intimation of the same had gone to the learned District Judge, he nevertheless proceeded with the suit. The parties led their evidence and ultimately he passed a preliminary decree on 25th July, 1966 in the following terms: -
(i) That the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement Ext. B executed on 6-3-63. The plaintiff is entitled to the rates for the items worked by him in terms of Schedule A attached to the same. The Commissioner will go into the accounts to find it out that wha
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
