- (1.) THIS appeal and the connected revision (Civil Revision No, 360 of 1954) are being disposed of by one judgment as they arise Out of the same litigation. Firm kaura Mal-Bishan Das used Ho carry on business at Multan; since the partition of the country, however, it has been carrying on its business in Delhi where it shifted on account of the setting up of Pakistan. Firm Mathra Das-Atma Ham respondent is carrying on business of Cloth Merchants and Commission Agents at Ahmedabad. Firm Kaura Mal-Bishan Das alleged that it had entered into several transactions of cloth through firm Mathra Das-Atma Ram at Ahmedabad, the dealings having started from January 1946 and continued for a number of years. It was further pleaded that firm Mathra Das-Alma Ram submitted some accounts on 19-3-1948 but the same were not admitted to be correct; the accounts having not been rendered of the entire dealings. Firm Kaura Mal-Bishan Das brought the present suit for rendition of accounts and for a decree for such amount as may be found due to it after the accounts have been gone into. Firm Mathra Das-Atma ram defendant-respondent pleaded that it was carrying on business as pucca arhtia at Ahmedadad; that its dealings with the plaintiff started on 20-2-1947; that it did not act as Commission Agents for the plaintiff, all the transactions being as principal to principal; and that the relationship between the parties being that of seller and buyer and full accounts having been already rendered and accepted as true by the plaintiff, and further the amount found due on the basis of those accounts having actually been received by the plaintiff, the present suit deserved to be dismissed. The form of the suit was also objected to. The learned subordinate Judge framed only one issue, on the pleadings of the parties, viz.-1. Whether the defendant is liable to render accounts to the plaintiff as commission Agents ?
(2.) THE trial Court found that the relationship between the parties was not that of principal and agent but of a seller and buyer and that the suit for rendition of accounts was thus not competent. It was also found that the accounts had already been fully gone into and rendered. On this finding the suit was dismissed.
(3.) THE plaintiff went up in appeal to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, presenting the memorandum of appeal on 9-8-1952. A preliminary objection was raised by the defendant-respondent that the Senior Subordinate Judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Shri Manohar Singh, who happened to be the Senior Subordinate Judge at the relevant time, gave effect to the preliminary objection and found that the appeal should have been filed in the Court of the district Judge. On the basis of this order on 17-2-1953 the memorandum of appeal was returned to the plaintiff-appellant for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter. On the same day the appellant's counsel took back the memorandum of appeal from the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge and represented it in the Court of the District Judge at Amritsar.;