D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS appeal must be allowed. The Courts below have taken wholly incorrect view of the matter. The suit was by the principal against the agent for rendition of account. Both the Courts below have found that the relationship is that of a principal and agent and have dismissed the suit on the ground that the principal should have brought a suit for specific amount. How they have come to this conclusion is beyond me. Section 213 of the Indian Contract Act gives a right to the principal to demand accounts from the agent. This is a statutory right and cannot be defeated by saying that the principal should sue for specific amount. Moreover, the principal could not sue for a specific sum. The principal had entrusted certain quantities of cotton to the agent for sale. The agent would be entitled to deduct expenses in connection with storage and other incidental expenses which only the agent knows. Therefore, the principal could not in any circumstances, arrive at a settled figure which the Courts below think he should have claimed. The decision relied upon by the Court below, Wali Mohamed Shalloo v. Khoja Ismaillia Trading Co. Ltd. 1, has no application whatever to the facts of the present case. That case dealt with a matter of Court -fee. Similarly, decision in Nanhe Singh v. Ram Narain 2', relied upon by the counsel for the respondent has no application. That decision again relates to a matter of Court fee. In none of these two cases the Court were required to determine whether a suit for accounts is maintainable by the principal against the agent. In my opinion and in view of the clear provision of section 218 of the Contract Act, such a suit is competent I accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below and hold that a suit for accounts is maintainable by the plaintiff. The case will now go back to the trial Court for further proceedings in accordance with law. The plaintiff will have his costs in this Court as well in the Courts below. The parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 2nd December, 1963.;