- (1.) THIS is a Special Appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1200/-, on the allegation that the plaintiff-firm Kamta Prasad Jagannath prasad was a registered firm and carried on business of commission agency for sale and purchase of potato, tobacco and 'khali', and the defendants had entered into several transactions of sale of potatoes, tobacco, etc. , through the plaintiff-firm and they had also made certain purchases from the firm and the amount was due on a balance of account. It was said that the accounts between the parties were mutual, open and current as the plaintiff had to pay to the defendants the price realised from defendants' customers and the defendants had to pay to the plaintiff price of the goods purchased. The last item was entered in the accounts on 31-7-1943, from which date, it was claimed, limitation should be computed. The suit was filed on 24-2-1944. Among other defences a defence was taken that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by limitation. The lower appellate Court decreed it. The learned single Judge has, however, dismissed the suit.
(2.) IT appears from the judgment of the learned single Judge, as also from the judgment of the lower appellate Court, that it was admitted that in the beginning the accounts were mutual, open and current. The lower appellate Court has said as follows : "the account in the present case was admittedly mutual in the beginning. The plaintiff sold goods to the defendant creating an obligation on the defendant to pay him their price. It also sold the defendant's goods to third parties making itself liable to the defendant to pay their price. It bought goods under the directions of the defendant and sold them to other persons under the directions of the defendant; in these transactions the defendant was under an obligation to pay the price paid by the plaintiff and the plaintiff was under an obligation to pay to the defendant what it realised on sale. So there were mutual dealings between the parties creating independent obligations. " the learned single Judge has said : "it is conceded before me that the dealings between the parties were in the nature of mutual, open and current account, where there had been reciprocal demands between the parties and the article applicable to the case is Art. 85, Limitation Act. "
(3.) ON this point, therefore, both parties were agreed that the dealings between the parties gave rise to reciprocal demands and the accounts were mutual, open and current.;