( 1 ) BANWARI Lal Tandon filed regular suit No. 51 of 1951 against Messrs. The Lakshmiji Sugar mills Co. Limited, Maholi, district Sitapur, claiming the following reliefs : (a) A decree for full and true account of commission due to the plaintiff. (b) Decree for Rs. 5,250 : 00 np. or such other further amount as may be found due to the plaintiff on rendition of details on which additional court-fee will be paid. (c) Interest at six per cent. per annum until payment. (d) Costs of the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff alleged that about the middle of January 1948 the defendant companys managing Director, Kishori Lal, had a talk with the plaintiff at plaintiffs residence to induce him to work as defendants representative to secure Government contracts for the supply of Sugar to various Government departments, and the plaintiff acted as the defendant companys agent and broker from the middle of January 1948 up to end of January 1949. The plaintiff was promised a commission of rupee one per bag on all contracts secured with Government departments or railway authorities. This commission was to include all expenses incurred by the plaintiff in running about and securing the contracts. The plaintiff worked for the defendant and secured the four contracts mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The plaintiff further alleged that he was not in possession of details of the contracts which are all in possession of the defendant. The defendant, despite requests, has neither rendered accounts nor paid money due in spite of promises. The plaintiff tentatively fixed the relief at Rs. 5,250: 00 np. The cause of action arose between February 1948 and January 1949 when the various contracts were secured by the plaintiff. The suit was instituted on 16-4-1951. Some of the contracts were beyond the period of three years limitation, and the plaintiff claimed that these were within limitation due to acknowledgments dated 24-3-1949 and 23-4-1949. Payments made have been appropriated in priority of time.

( 3 ) THE first written statement was filed on 24-5-1951. The defendant admitted that plaintiff had been appointed agent but asserted that the1 agreement had been arrived at Maholi and the plaintiff had acted as agent only from February 1948 to December 1948. The rate of commission was only -/8/- per cent. In paragraph 4 it was asserted that the defendant was not bound to render accounts. It was claimed that A sum of Rs. 7703/15/- was due to defendant from the plaintiff.

( 4 ) ON 19-7-1951 the following issues were framed : 1. Was the contract made at Lucknow? 2. Was it agreed that the payment was to be made at Lucknow? 3. What were the terms of the contracts and brokerage or commission as the case may be? 4. In which of the transactions alleged is the plaintiff entitled to accounting?

( 5 ) TO what relief is the plaintiff entitled? The learned Civil Judge further directed "in the first instance the case will proceed to the stage of a decree for preliminary accounts and the terms for it. Final decree shall be prepared later. " 5. On 30-11-1951 an application seeking to amend the written statement was filed. It was pointed out that the plaintiff, alleging himself to be an agent, had brought a suit for accounts, that such a suit was not maintainable and that inadvertently the plea of non-maintainability of the suit was not taken in the written-statement. The defendant, therefore, sought to add a new paragraph 10a urging "that an agent is not entitled in law to sue his principal for account hence the present suit is not maintainable. " The amendment was allowed and a further issue No. 6 was framed which is to the following effect : "6. Is an agent not entitled to sue his principal for account? If so, its effect? this remained the position between the parties and evidence was led. The defence evidence was closed on 31-7-1952 and 2-8-1952 was fixed for arguments. On that date the arguments could not be taken up due to a sessions trial and the hearing