Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by Seth Manak Lalji against the decree of Shri Raj Sabha, Raj Devgarh, Pratabgarh.
(2.) ONLY one point has been urged on behalf of the appellant, viz. , that the suit was not entertainable as the document on which it was based was a mere acknowledgment and not an account stated as alleged on behalf of the respondent. This depends upon a consideration of the document in question and the circumstances in which it came into existence. The facts, which appear on the record as to the making of this document, are these. There was lenden between the parties. It appears that on Phalgun Sud 7, Svt. 1997, Manak Lal went to the shop of the respondent in Pratapgarh with his account books, and settled accounts with the Munim of the respondent. It may be mentioned that the respondent must have been a minor at that time, because he gave his age as 20 years in December, 1944. After the accounts had been understood, the appellant handed over the document which is the basis of this suit. The terms of that document have been given in detail by the lower appellate court. The document shows an opening balance in Smt. 1995. Then it shows a payment of Rs. 25/-through one Chokh Chand. Then come an item of interest, and a balance. Finally there come another item of interest and final balance as outstanding on Kartik Sud 1, Smt. 1997. Then follow the words "upar MUJAB HISAB TAPAS HAMARE KHATE LENA KAR DIJYO. " The evidence also shows that on the basis of this account, a corresponding entry was made in the account book of the respondent, which was corrected accordingly. The main contention on behalf of the appellant is that there was no account stated as the document itself shows that the respondent was asked to check the account, and that there is no evidence to show that the respondent checked the account and communicated the acceptance of the account given to him by the appellant. We have already mentioned that the respondent was a minor at that time, and a Munim, Magan Lal, was working for him, and it was with Magan Lal that the settlement took place. It is also in evidence that this Magan Lal is now in the service of the appellant. The respondent has appeared in the witness-box, and stated whatever he knew of the transaction; but the appellant, Manak Lal, and Magan Lal Munim, who is now in his service and, therefore, presumably under his influence, have not appeared to contest the statement of the respondent. We have no doubt, after taking into account the circumstances in which this document was created, that it amounts to an account stated, and that, therefore, a suit would lie on this document. We may, in this connection, refer to the case of Bishun Chand V. Girdhari Lal and another (A. I. R. 1934 Privy Council 147), where the ingredients of "an account stated" have been given at page 151 in the following words: - "indeed, the essence of an account stated is not the character of the items on one side or the other, but the fact that there are cross items of account and that the parties mutually agree to the several amounts of each and, by treating the items so agreed on the one side as discharging the items on the other side protanto, go on to agree that the balance only is payable. Such a transaction is in truth bilateral, and creates a new debt and a new cause of action. There are mutual promises, the one side agreeing to accept the amount of the balance of the debt as true (because there must in such cases be, at least in the end, a creditor to whom the balance is due) and to pay it, the other side agreeing the entire debt as at a certain figure and then agreeing that it has been discharged to such and such an extent, so that there will be complete satisfaction on payment of the agreed balance. Hence,there is mutual consideration to support the promises on either side and to constitute the new cause of action. " In this case, there is no doubt that there are cross - items in the account, and credit has been given where any amount has been paid by one side or the other. The main argument on behalf of the appellant is that there was no mutual agreement before this document was written, and this is clear from the language itself, because the document speaks of the necessity of checking. But as we have already pointed out, the circumstances in which this document came into existence shows that whatever may be the language, there was a settlment of account between Manak Lal and the Munim of the respondent, and the respondent's Munim had agreed on his behalf to accept this document as correct. This is clearly proved from the fact that the respondent's account was corrected accordingly, and was reduced by a sum of RS.-/8/3. This will appear from Ex. P. 1. We have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the court below that this is a case of an account stated, and the suit was entertainable. In this view of the matter there is no force in this appeal, and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent. .;