Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The plaintiff instituted this C. S. No. 298 of 2001, inter alia, praying for a decree for Rs. 22,84,357.18 paise as against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally; decree for Rs. 16,71,252.72 paise as against the defendant Nos. 4 to 16 jointly and severally; mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and each one of them to render true and faithful accounts of all the dealings and transactions entered into by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as the agent of the plaintiff and for the decree for such sum as might be found due and payable upon such accounts being taken; mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to allow inspection of the stocks, books and registers of the said defendants maintained in connection with the dealings and transactions entered into by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as the agent of the plaintiff, interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 24% per annum.
(2.) The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff carried on business as manufacturer of cement and the defendant No. 1 was a partnership firm and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners. The plaintiff appointed the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as its handling, clearing and selling agent at Cossipore for cement manufactured by the plaintiff. Time to time agreements were entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. the last of such agreement was dated August 10, 1997. One of the terms of the said agreement was that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 would not sell cement on credit and would sell cement against advance payment only. In violation of the said agreement, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 made various limited credit sales to different customers including defendant Nos. 4 to 16. After giving adjustments for all money paid by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, the said defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were liable to pay Rs.22, 84, 357. 18 paise to the plaintiff. The defendant Nos. 4 to 16 being the purchaser of the said materials were jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff.
(3.) In paragraph 13 of the said plaint it was stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff made the defendant Nos. 4 to 16 as parties to the instant suit so that the question as to which of the defendants were liable and to what extent might be determined between the parties. It was stated that such adjudication was necessary inasmuch as the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were contending that the purchasers were liable to the plaintiff while the purchasers, namely, the defendant Nos. 4 to 16, were contending that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were liable to the plaintiff.;