An agent can sue the principal for rendition of accounts only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the principal has all the accounts and the agent has none. The suit must be filed within three years from the date the right to sue accrues, which is usually the date the agency terminates. If the agent omits to seek the relief of rendition of accounts in a prior suit, they cannot later sue for it under O.II R.2(3) C.P.C.

The defendant in O.S. 434 of 1977, District Munsif's Court Madurai town, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was laid by the respondent herein praying for the relief of rendition of accounts by the appellant. The circumstances giving rise to the second appeal are as follows -

2. The appellant appointed the respondent as an agent for procurement of paddy and rice and also as a hulling agent and the respondent had to purchase paddy from the producers with his own money and after converting the paddy into rice, supply the same to the appellant or as directed by it. The work of hulling agency consisted of hulling for the appellant paddy and supply rice as directed by it. Agreements in the prescribed forms were executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant and security deposit was also furnished. According to the respondent, in the Kuruvai season in 1966, he purchased paddy and converted it into rice and supplied to the Government, besides converting paddy supplied by the Government and delivering the same to it. The respondent claimed that in respect of the transactions, the appellant had to pay him large sums of money, besides hulling charges, commission, profit and return of security deposit etc. The respondent also stated that suits in O.S. 395 of 1969 and S.C. 114 of 1970 were filed for recovery of certain amounts from the appellant and O.S. 395 of 1969 was dismissed while S.C. 114 of 1970 was decreed. A notice was sent by the appellant to the respondent demanding a sum of Rs. 2,12,803-43, under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, and thereupon, the respondents instituted O.S. 138 of 1977 District Munsif Court, Madurai town for an injunction restraining the appellant from taking further steps on the notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The respondent, though an agent, claimed that he is entitled to call upon the appellant, the principal, to render a true and proper account for all the transactions between the respondent and the appellant. It was under these circumstances, that the respondents instituted the suit praying for a preliminary decree directing the appellant to render accounts to the respondent and also to pass a final decree after the taking of such accounts by the appointments of a Commissioner.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant, while admitting that the respondent was appointed as a procuring and hulling agent of the appellant, it contended that the respondent during 1966-67, procured paddy and rice in Thanjavur Dt. on account of the appellant, but moved the same to Dindigul for distribution to retailers and similarly procured paddy in Nilakottai taluk on his own private money and though the respondent was to supply to the godown as per the directions of the Civil Supplies officials, he failed to so supply and the respondent also did not render an account relating to the transactions despite specific directions. The appellant also put forth a plea that on verification of the records available with it, the respondent owed a sum of Rs. 2,12,803-43 towards the costs of the short supplies and resultant loss and to recover this amount a notice was sent. The right of the respondent to demand accounts of the appellant either in law or in equity was denied. Referring to the institution of the suit in O.S. 395 of 1969, by the respondent and the dismissal thereof, the appellant also pleaded that the respondent is estopped from filing a suit against the respondent for rendition of accounts. An objection that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit was also raised. Yet another objection that as the transaction related to 1966-1967, the suit instituted on 6-6-1977 was barred by limitation was also raised.

4. Before the trial court on behalf of the respondent, Exs. A-1 to A-51, were marked and no oral evidence was let in, while, on behalf of he appellant, Exs. B-1 to B-4 were filed and D.W. 1 gave evidence. On a consideration of the e