- (1.) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge maintaining the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court in a matter of rendition of accounts.
(2.) The case originated with the institution of a suit by the plaintiff-respondents on the primary averments that they were the sole selling agents of the defendant-appellants who had defaulted in the payment of the commission due to them for the relevant period. It was alleged that the complete accounts regarding the commission were with the defendants and because of this reason, the precise amount thereof could not be fixed, and therefore, the present suit for rendition of accounts was filed. The defendant-appellants contested the same and out of the 7 issues framed, the trial Court decided the material issue Nos. 3 and 6 against the respondents and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Sangrur, reversed the finding on issue No. 3 and further held under issue No. 6 that the question of misconduct by the plaintiff-respondents would be gone into at the time of the taking of accounts. Affirming the other findings of the trial Court, the learned District Judge passed the preliminary decree for rendition of accounts in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. In the second appeal as already noticed, the learned Single Judge affirmed the judgment of the first appellate Court.
(3.) It is obvious that the questions and issues of fact in the judgment of affirmance by the learned Single Judge cannot be re-agitated in the present appeal. Mr. R.L. Aggarwal had, therefore, sought to contend that the plaintiff-respondents were disentitled to maintain a suit for the rendition of accounts because they could arrive at a precise figure of the alleged commission due to them. We are unable to agree with this contention. The learned Single Judge has adequately adverted to this aspect of the case and after noticing 3 valid reasons, has concluded as below :- "In that view of the matter, it is obvious that the respondents had no sufficient data to calculate the commission payable to them on the sales of cloth effected directly by the appellants to the customers residing in District Mohindergarh and Rajasthan directly or on the orders booked by them (the respondents). As such, they had undoubtedly an equitable right to sue the appellants for accounts." We find no reason to differ from the above quoted findings of the learned Single Judge as also those of the first appellate Court.;