Shiv Dayal, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure code arises out of a suit instituted by the Respondent against the Appellant for rendition of accounts.

The Plaintiff's case as stated in the plaint was that in Samvat 2002 the Plaintiff dealt in purchasing and selling of Ghee, Sugar, Cotton etc. through the Defendant as his commission agent; that the Defendant did not furnish accounts in spite of repeated demand by the Plaintiff and that afterwards the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a statement of account but the same was not correct. The defence was that the Plaint was vague; that the statement of accounts which had been sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was correct and that whatever amount had been found due to the Plaintiff had been remitted to him by a cheque dated 2nd August 1949. In the pleadings both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have been described as firms, but it appears that the Plaintiff Keshrimal is the sole proprietor of his business carried in the name and style of "firm Keshrilal Moolchand;" likewise, Badrilal is the sole proprietor of his business named and styled as Ramlal Ramchandra.

The trial Judge held that the Plaintiff was not able to show which items of the statement of accounts sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff were incorrect and that the only item of Rs. 500 which was disputed by the Plaintiff was proved to be correct. He dismissed the suit.

On appeal by the Plaintiff, the judgment of the trial Judge has been set aside and the Plaintiff's appeal has been allowed. The appellate Court has held that the Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts and has remanded the case to the first Court for final disposal. It is against this judgment and decree dated 20th September 1955 that this second appeal has been preferred by the Defendant firm.

Shri Patankar learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that the accounts having already been settled between the parties, there was no question of re-opening them and demanding accounts from the Defendant. Reliance is placed on the fact that the Defendant had sent a statement of accounts to the Plaintiff and thus the only thing that remained in dispute was whether the account was correct or not. It is urged that the Plaintiff did not dispute any particular item, except one, and that the Plaintiff having not proved fraud or material error, he is not entitled to get the accounts re-opened.

The whole case of the Defendant is that because he had sent a statement of the accounts to the Plaintiff, his duty was over and the Plaintiff could not sue for rendition of accounts. In my opinion, the stand taken by the Defendant is not sound. If his contention is accepted, an agent will be discharged of his burden to render the accounts to his principal by just sending any sort of statement and then asking the principal to prove fraud or mistake. This will be unreasonable and unjust. It will defeat the object and purpose of Section 213 of the Contract Act which runs thus:

An agent is bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand.

Now, there can be no doubt that the principal's right to demand accounts from his agent comes to an end where the accounts have already been stated and settled between them. It has been stated in Halsbury's Laws of England that settled accounts cannot, as a rule, be re-opened, but the principal may obtain leave to surcharge and falsify them (3rd Edition, Volume 1, page 1890). "If the parties can show an omission for which correct account ought to be given that is a surcharge; or if anything is inserted that is a wrong charge he is at liberty to show it and that is falsification; but that must be by proof on his side," (Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edition, Vol. XXIII, page 388.)

Since Shri Patankar's argument is that in the present case the accounts must be deemed as settled because the Defendant had already sent to the Plaintiff a statement of the accounts, what I have t