A successful claim for rendition of accounts requires evidence of a specific legal relationship, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CM-41-C-2017

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 177 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the Proprietor of the applicant/appellant-Company, the same is allowed and delay of 177 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA-24-2017 (O&M)

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the appellant for rendition of mutual and current accounts; and for decree for mandatory injunction for payment of amount found due after rendition of accounts, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiff/appellant in the plaint are that the plaintiff-Company is engaged in construction work. The defendant is originally a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Nitasha Construction later incorporated as M/s. Nitasha Enirotech Pvt. Ltd. The defendant firm was Government contractor of electrical, mechanical and civil work. While working as Nitasha Construction, the defendant had undertaken work of Incinerator Building at PGIMS, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'Rohtak Work') and asked the plaintiff for submitting quotations for carrying out the above said works as Sub-Contractor. By mutual Agreement vide letter dated 12.06.1994 sum of Rs.5,30,000/- was agreed to be paid in lump sum for carrying out the work. It was the case of the plaintiff that it had executed extra work beyond the agreed works for an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- for which payment was received by the defendant from the Department, however, was not released to the plaintiff. As such, defendant was liable to render the accounts, but the same has not been rendered despite several requests.

3. It was further pleaded that in 1996-1997, plaintiff was again engaged by the defendant for Incinerator Building work at RBTB Hospital, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'RBTB work') and AIIMS, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'AIIMS work') for which quotations were accepted by the defendant vide letter dated 24.10.1996. As per the Agreement, defendant was to make advance payment of Rs.50,000/- per Work however, the same was not paid to the plaintiff. Plaintiff completed RBTB Work on 31.03.1997 and AIIMS Work on 30.06.1997. Defendant had failed to pay for the materials and instead made direct payments to the supplier/labour and without transparency kept mutual accounts but never settled them. Thus, plaintiff had sent a demand notice of Rs.10 lacs for both the works. In response to which defendant vide letter dated 24.06.1999 demanded proper bill but never rendered the accounts. The plaintiff sent bills vide letter dated 19.04.2000 but accounts of the plaintiff were not settled. Even legal notice dated 03.06.2002 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. However, neither account statement was supplied, nor any amount was rendered, nor any dues were paid. Hence, present Suit was instituted 16.07.2002 praying that 'a decree for rendition of mutual and current account for carrying out the Rohtak work, RBTB work and AIIMS work, be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It was further prayed that by way of mandatory injunction, the defendant be directed to make the payment of dues with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount of rendition of accounts."

4. Against the suit of the appellant, defenda