The duty to render accounts is not automatically imposed on a party, and a suit for mere rendition of accounts without seeking recovery of the due amount may not be maintainable.

L. N.MITTAL, J. (Oral) - Plaintiff Bhim Singh, who succeeded in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the first appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal.

2. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he and his brother used to jointly sell their crop at the shop of defendant no.1 - Commission Agent, of which defendants no. 2 and 3 are partners. Plaintiff and his brother sold their crops jointly till 1999 and thereafter, separately. Since Harri 1995 till Harri 2001 crops, they used to take fertilizers, oil and and insecticides etc. from defendants no.1 to 3. On these allegations, the plaintiff filed suit for rendition of accounts since Kharif 1995 to Kharif 2001 crops sold by the plaintiff through defendants no.1 to 3. Plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from preparing forged and false documents on blank and printed papers, on which defendants have obtained signatures of plaintiff and account books, on which defendants have obtained signatures of plaintiff and restraining the defendants from effecting any recovery from the plaintiff on the basis thereof and from interfering in sale of crop by the plaintiff through some other Commission Agent and from taking forcible possession of plaintiff's paddy crop.

3. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted that plaintiff and his brother Jarnail Singh used to sell their crops through defendant no.1 since 20.04.1995 till 1998-99 jointly and the account was in the name of plaintiff Bhim Singh. Thereafter, both the brothers sold their crop separately in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 through their separate accounts. Lastly, they sold their Rabi (Harri) 2001 crop. However, nothing remained due to the plaintiff and his brother from defendant no.1. On the contrary, plaintiff borrowed? 6,00,000/-from defendant no.1 on 10.05.2001 and executed pronote and receipt for the same, whereas plaintiff's brother Jarnail Singh borrowed ? 7,25,000/-on 29.10.2001 from defendant no.1 and executed pronote and receipt for the same. Accounts of crops sold by the plaintiff and his brother have already been settled. Moreover, defendants no.1 to 3 never refused to settle their accounts. Plaintiff and his brother themselves are not ready to settle the accounts. Other plaint allegations were broadly controverted. Various other pleas were also raised.

4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit holding him entitled to rendition of accounts for the period from Harri 1995 to Harri 2001 from defendants no.1 to 3 and preliminary decree to this effect was passed. However, first appeal preferred by defendants no. 1 to 3 has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2009 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the lower appellate court has misread the testimony of the plaintiff to the effect that he has settled his accounts with defendants no.1 to 3 till the year 1999 because in fact, plaintiff was referring to said settlement of accounts with his own brother and not with defendants no.1 to 3. Relevant part of statement of plaintiff, as read by learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, may lead to two interpretations.

7. However, it has to be seen whether there was any duty cast on defendants no.1 to 3 to render accounts to the plaintiff. The answer to this question has to be in the negative. There was no fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 3, making defendants no.1 to 3 liable to render the accounts to the plaintiff. Merely because plaintiff was selling his crop through defendants no.1 to 3 would not make defendants no.1 to 3 liable to render any accounts to the plaint