JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The plaintiffs and defendants were partners in certain grain transactions which they jointly carried on with the firm of Bhaga Ram Sri Ram, commission agents of Jalalabad. The transactions were all conducted by the aforesaid firm of commission agents, and all accounts relating to these transactions were entered either in the books of the commission agents or in those of defendants. The partnership lasted from 5th April 1920 to 31st August 1920 and it appears that it comprised eight transactions in all. On 3rd August 1920 the parties and the commission agents met, accounts were gone into and profits and loss determined. It was discovered that there had been profit in seven transactions but loss in one. Accordingly on that date an entry was made in the books of the plaintiffs in two columns. On the credit side being shown the plaintiff's share of the profits of each of the seven transactions, the total of which was recorded as Rs. 451-15-3. To this Rs. 50 was added as interest at 1 per cent. from 5th April 1920, up-to-date. On the debit side the sum of Rs. 119 was shown as representing the plaintiff's share of loss incurred on 8th transaction. Below these columns it was written that the entire account of the dealings with Bhaga Ram Sri Ram, commission agents, had been examined, according to which the above mentioned items indicated the share of the plaintiffs. This was followed by a writing in Sardari Mal's own hand to the effect that Rs. 501-15-3 above-mentioned were correct as having been arrived at as the plaintiff's share of the profit after division (Nafa wand kar lagaya). This entry is dated 6th Bhadon 1977 (31st August 1920).

2. On 15th June 1925 the plaintiffs instituted the present suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 600 due on foot of this entry, Rs. 382-15-3 being the principal and Rs. 117-0-9 interest at 1 per cent. The defendants denied the execution of the entry and raised various other defences including limitation. The learned Sub-Judge overruled all these objections and held that the execution was proved and the suit was within time under Article 64. He accordingly passed a decree for the full sum claimed against the defendants.

3. On appeal the learned District Judge agreed with the Sub-Judge in holding that the defendants had executed the entry in question but dismissed the suit as barred by time, holding that it was governed by Article 106 and not by Article 64, Lim. Act. The learned District Judge also held that there was no proof of any oral agreement by the defendants to pay interest

4. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal and it has been urged on their behalf that the entry in question is an account stated and the suit is within time under Article 64. I have heard the case argued at length by the learned Counsels of both parties and am of opinion that this appeal ought to succeed. The learned District Judge has held that the entry in question is not an account stated and that. Article 106 applies to the suit based on it. In coming to this conclusion the learned Judge has expressed the opinion that the account stated within the meaning of Article 64 implies cross demands and it is mutual surrender of those cross demands that creates a new contract between the parties when an account is stated between them. As in the present case there was no proof of any cross demands or of the creation of a new contract, the aforesaid article was held inapplicable. There is no doubt that conflicting views have been expressed by the various High Courts as to the meaning of the word "account stated," and both counsels have cited a number of rulings in support of their respective contentions. I do not, however, propose to discuss these rulings at length as I am of opinion that so far as this case is concerned the matter is concluded by the leading authority of this Court reported as Nand Lal v. Partap Singh A.I.R. 1922 Lah. 425 which was a case very similar to the present one. There,