Ordinary Civil Court has jurisdiction in the matter.

S. A. KADER J.

The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate judge of Devakottai in O. S. No. 74 of 1978. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff is a private limited company represented by its managing director and the suit was laid for rendition of accounts against the defendant who was the former managing director and was in management of the company till May 5, 1976, when the present managing director assumed office. The defendant was assisted in the management by her brother-in-law, Thirunavukkarasu Chettiar. The plaintiff company owns extensive lands cultivated on pannai basis and on lease and the income from the lands is considerable. The company also owns lopes. The defendant, during her management, has collected paddy from the lands and realised income from the tope, negotiated agreements for sale and received advances without the sanction of the board and secreted these amounts. She has failed to convene annual meetings of directors and to submit accounts, balance-sheets and other relevant records. During her period of management, the properties of the company were attached for agricultural income-tax and land tax and also in execution of a decree in favour of one Parvathi Achi, a depositor in the company. The present managing director and other directors have discharged a substantial portion of these outstandings. The present managing director has been requesting the defendant to hand over the accounts and vouchers of the company, but she has not done so. She has left for Trichy and is attempting to fabricate the accounts of the company. Hence, the suit for directing the defendant to produce in court all accounts, vouchers, receipts, minute books and other documents of the company in her custody together with cash and other properties of the company in her hands and render true and proper accounts of her management as managing director of the company till May 5, 1976.The suit was resisted by the defendant. She contended that the suit, as framed, did not lie in the court below and was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. According to her, the court below, not being a court as defined in section 10 of the Companies Act, has no jurisdiction either to entertain or dispose of the dispute raised in the plaint and on this one ground alone, the suit was liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendant denied all the other allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance and non-feasance levelled against her and characterised them as reckless and malicious falsehood. She had absolutely no objection to producing the accounts and vouchers in court within such time as the court may be pleased to grant and may be audited by the company's auditor through court. She, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial :

(1) Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ?

(2) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the undertaking given by the defendant to produce the accounts ?

(3) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ?

The learned Subordinate judge took up for consideration issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction and held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, consequently, he dismissed the suit without going into the other issues. It is against this decree of dismissal that the plaintiff has come in appeal.

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain this action for accounts :

Point : The plaintiff is a private limited company and the defendant was its former managing director. The plaintiff, represented by its present managing director, has filed this suit against the defendant for rendition of true and proper accounts of the defendant's management as managing director of the company till May 5, 1976. Various allegations of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance are levelled