S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted in all these special leave petitions.
(2.) BY consent of parties the appeals arising from these special leave petitions were heard finally and are being disposed of by this judgment as common questions are raised for our consideration in these appeals. The appellant in appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10981 of 1987 and S.L.P. (C) No. 6392 of 1995 is Mahendra Singh Jaggi, party-inperson who was also permitted to be assisted by Advocte Shri Ranjit Kumar who was good enough to appear amicus curiae for him at our request. We express our deep sense of appreciation for the service rendered by Shri Ranjit Kumar at our instance. We will refer to the appellant in these two appeals as defendant and the contesting respondent as the plaintiff. In appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12429 of 1990 the plaintiff is the appellant while the defendant is the contesting respondent. Disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant which have culminated in the present proceedings before us are spread over years and represent a chequered history. At the outset we may briefly indicated the background facts leading to the present proceedings.
(3.) THE plaintiff filed a civil suit in 1961 in the Court of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack against the defendant for realisation of Rs. 10723.63 (Principal amount of Rs. 9385. 09 plus interest Rs. 1338.54 @ 10 Per Cent p.a. ) on Khata account. According to the plaintiff he was a financier and had advanced moneys from time to time to the defendant for enabling him to carry on his motor spare part business. According to the plaintiff the suit amount was falling due at the foot of account. In the said suit the defendant raised a counter-claim in his additional written statement claiming certain amounts after taking accounts from the plaintiffs in respect of goods which came into his possession in pursuance of an agreement. THE trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit against the defendant but also accepted the cross-claim of the defendant for accounts and passed a preliminary decrees for accounts to be rendered by the plaintiff for the goods lying in his custody. THE trial Court observed that the details of the decree would be worked out in the final decree. THE plaintiff carried the matter in appeal so far as preliminary decree for accounts was concerned. Defendant also appealed against the money decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant's appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Defendant did not challenge that appellate order any further. Thus money decree passed against the defendant became final but the plaintiff's appeal against the preliminary decree for accounts as passed against him in favour of the defendant was allowed by the High Court. It set aside that part of the judgment and decree of the trial Court which directed the plaintiff to render accounts and dismissed the cross-claim made by the defendant in his additional written statement. THE defendant, who was respondent in plaintiff's appeal, carried the matter in further appeal before this Court. A three member Bench of this Court speaking through S. M. Sikri, C. J., allowed the appeal of the defendant and restored the preliminary decree of accounts as passed in his favour by the trial Court and directed the trial Court to proceed further for passing final decree in accordance with law. THE aforesaid decision of this Court is reported as Mohinder Singh Jaggi v. Data Ram Jagannath, AIR 1972 SC 1048. Pursuant to the preliminary decree for accounts as passed in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff by this Court the final decree proceedings were resumed. THE Commissioner for scrutinising the accounts as appointed by the trial Court submitted his Report which was not acceptable to both the sides. After considering their objections to the Report ultimately the trial Court passed a final decree for accounts in favour of the defendant awarding Rs. 5,268.00 with profit at 10 Per Cent as recommended by the aforesaid Commissioner. THE defendant challenged the said final decree before the High Court in First Appeal No. 17 of 1977. THE total claim put forward by the defendant in the said appeal consisted of four items totalling to Rs. 47,478.86 as under: JUDGEMENT_28_9_1998Html1.htm THE learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated 25/02/1987 allowed the appeal and held that the defendant is entitled to Rs. 16,759.00 from the plaintiff. He was also held entitled to pendente lite interest @ 8 Per Cent per annum on the aforesaid amount and future interest from the date of the order at commercial rate of interest at 10 Per Cent per annum till the date of recovery since the entire transaction was outcome of business transaction. THE defendant moved a Review Petition No. 7 of 1987 which was dismissed on 7/07/1987. THE aforesaid decision rendered by the learned single Judge in First Appeal No. 17 of 1977 is the subject-matter of appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10981 of 1987. The plaintiff on the other hand filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court being A.H.O. No. 8 of 1987 against the order rendered by the learned single Judge in First Appeal No. 17 of 1977 insofar as the learned Judge had enhanced the decretal amount payable to the defendant. The defendant on his part filed cross-objections in the said A.H.O. No. 8 of 1987 pending before the Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the said A.H.O. partly to the extent that increase in price granted by the learned single Judge of Rs. 5,000.00 was set aside and the future rate of interest granted to the defendant was scaled down from 18 Per Cent to 12 Per Cent . So far as the crossobjections filed by the defendant were concerned the Division Bench did not go into the crossobjections in view of the pendency of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10981 of 1987 before this Court. The defendant thereafter preferred a review petition against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 18/08/1993. The Division Bench by order dated 28/10/1994 dismissed the review petition on account of pendency of the Special Leave Petition before this Court. The judgments rendered by the Division Bench dated 18/08/1993 and 28/10/1994 are brought in challenge by the defendant in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6392 of 1995.;