1985 PLP 1537 (MLD)

This Second Appeal was directed against the judgment, dated 5-12-1972 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the appeal of Sadar Din against the judgment and decree; dated 27-2-1971 dismissing the suit was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Sadar Din expired in 1980 during the pendency of the appeal but his legal representatives despite intimation of the learned counsel engaged by Sadar Din have not submitted any application for impleading them in place of Sadar Din deceased. Despite the fact that application has not been made, the appeal is to be proceeded with as is contemplated by Order XXII, rule 3 read with rule 11, C.P.C.

2. I have gone through the judgments of both the learned Courts below with the help of the learned counsel for the "parties and I find that no justifiable exception can be taken to the concurrent findings recorded. The issue "Whether the suit was not maintainable for rendition of accounts against the defendants, if so, what is its effect?" was conceded by the learned Government Pleader in his statement, dated 3-4-1965. The other issue "Whether the defendants were liable to render accounts to the plaintiff as prayed?" was found against the plaintiff appellant. A Local Commissioner was appointed to examine the accounts and according to the statement prepared by him, an amount of Rs.7,333.10 was found outstanding against the plaintiff. This finding was not challenged by the plaintiff-appellant. It was thus taken that something was due from the plaintiff-appellant to the defendants and not from the defendants to the plaintiff. The learned Courts below in these circumstances field that as the plaintiff-appellant owed the sum mentioned above to the defendants, the latter were not liable to render accounts to the plaintiff-appellant. After recording findings, the suit. of the plaintiff-appellant for rendition of accounts was dismissed. Strangely enough, after finding that a sum of Rs.7,333.10 was payable by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendants, decree against the plaintiff appellant was tot granted. It is common knowledge that in a suit for rendition of amounts, decree could be granted against the party held liable to pay the amount. Neither such a decree was passed in favour of the respondents nor the respondents, it appears, claimed such decree. The respondents have not agitated against the refusal to pass a decree in their favour despite the finding that the afore note sum of money was due and payable to them. The respondents also failed to file any cross-objections to the appeal filed.

3. This second appeal is thus without merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. H . B . T . Appeal dismissed.