B. DAYAL, J. :- These three appeals arise out of two suits between the parties. Two of the appeals have been filed by the common defendant while third is by one of the plaintiffs Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. These appeals have been pending in this Court since 1952 mainly because the parties insisted upon bringing lawyers from outside but were unable to decide upon a common date on which lawyers for both the sides were able to attend the Court. After all, with great difficulty, the appeals were started on the 6th of December, 1965 and were partly heard on the 7th of December, 1965 also, on which date learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants had finished their arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent started his case and argued for sometime but the cases had to be postponed. Since then several dates were fixed but the plaintiffs were unable to bring any counsel to complete the arguments on their behalf. The cases were ultimately fixed for the 9th of May, 1966 and the learned junior counsel who were appearing for the plaintiff-respondents were definitely informed that the date would not be altered. However, an application was again filed for postponement of the cases, from the 9th of May, 1966 and at the very clear promise on behalf of the learned junior counsel that any date after the 9th of May, 1966 would be adhered to and some senior counsel, who may be able to argue on the new date would be engaged, the cases were postponed to the 12th of May, 1966 by our order dated the 26th of April, 1966 on an application of the same date. However, no one appeared to argue the cases even on the 12th of May, 1966 and in view of the fact that the court was about to close for summer vacations, we refused to postpone the cases any further. The result, therefore, is that we have to dispose of these appeals without hearing the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs in the two suits.

2. One suit no. 63 of 1949 was filed by Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. against the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. while the other suit no. 65 of 1949 was filed by M/s. Behari Lal Ram Charan against the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. Before these suits were filed, the defendant the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter called the Corporation) as well as the two plaintiff's Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company) and M/s. Behari Lal Ram Charan (hereinafter called the Firm) were being looked after by the Gupta group and the Singhania group jointly with the result that the accounts of all the three were being mixed with each other and mutual open and current accounts were maintained in the Corporation, the Company and the Firm showing debit and credit balances in favour of each other. But by means of an award the two groups separated their interests so that the Corporation became the exclusive concern of the Singhania group and the Company as well as the Firm became the exclusive concerns of the Gupta group and it became necessary thereafter to settle the mutual accounts. In order to do so, both the groups appointed one officer each to look into the accounts and to negotiate on matters of difference. On behalf of the Corporation one Shri N. L. V. Subramanayam was directed to go into the accounts and to iron out differences while on behalf of the Gupta group another officer was similarly appointed and correspondence started between the two officers. Being unable to come to a common agreement, correspondence stopped and the Company filed suit no. 63 of 1949 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,56,207/9/6 with pendente lite and future interest. Apart from stating the history of the dealings between the parties, the plaint went on to say that an open and current account was being maintained by the plaintiff with regard to dealings with the defendant and that on demand of the balance of the amount due, the defendant paid on the 16th of November, 1944 a sum of Rs. 8,00,000 leaving a ba