Suit for rendition of accounts

2019 CLD 505 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9, 35 & 19PartnershipSuit for rendition of accountsBurden of proofExistence of partnershipScope

In order to apply the enabling provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932 in a suit for rendition of accounts, it was essential for plaintiff to prove that a partnership firm existed and such firm was engaged in any trade or business or had gained profit or incurred loss

Onus to prove such facts lay on the plaintiff in order to prove that the firm was practically performing business.

2019 YLR 2413 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

O. XX, R. 16Suit for rendition of accountsContractual relationshipScope

Suit for rendition of accounts can only be filed against defendant where there exists any fiduciary relationship between the parties like partners of firm, guardian and ward, principal and agent, trustee and beneficiary of the trust

Where the relationship between the parties is contractual, the defendant cannot be obligated to render the accounts to the plaintiff.

2017 CLCN 174 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 33Suit for rendition of accountAppointment of referee on the statement of counsel for the partiesExpression "party to the suit has expressly referred" in Art.33, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984ScopeAdmission on behalf of a partyRole of refereeInquiry by the refereeStatement of information by the referee

Trial Court appointed referee for verification of accounts between the parties on the statements of their counsel and suit was dismissed on the report of said referee

Contention of plaintiff was that referee was appointed on the statement of counsel which could not be called a valid appointment

Validity

Statement of information made by a referee would become an admission on behalf of the party

Party should himself make reference to any person to make statement of information on his behalf

None of the parties had made any such express request/statement to refer the matter to any person

Referee was not competent to conduct rendition of account

Order of Trial Court was outside the domain of Art.33 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Nothing was on record that plaintiff/parties had given instructions to his/their counsel for making statement for appointment of referee

If a party to the suit had himself made statement for appointment of a referee then the statement made by the referee would be considered as admission by the party appointing referee and not otherwise

Counsel for the parties were not competent to make statement in absence of any such specific instruction

Referee had assumed the powers of arbitrator in the present case

Role of referee was only to make statement of information based on his personal knowledge

Referee had made inquiry in the present case and report submitted by him was not based on his personal knowledge

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were not sustainable in the eye of law which were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2017 CLCN 204 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

O. VIII, R. 6Suit for rendition of accountsPlea of set off by defendantPlaintiff not giving details of re-payments to the defendant

Appellant/plaintiff contended that Rs. 2,00,000/- loan obtained by him from the defendant was taken back by the defendant in shape of different articles

Respondent/defendant claimed set off while producing documentary evidence that plaintiff received Rs. 5,00,000/- from the defendant

Validity

Undisputedly loan was extended to the appellant for doing business and respondent obtained part of loan amount back in the shape of different articles at different times from the appellant

Chief Court observed that appellant was bound to be very specific regarding payments to the respondent

Appellant, in such a common business, was obliged to maintain record of receipts and payments and only then could file a suit for rendition of accounts

Where in money matter receipt of amount was admitted or proved through overwhelming evidence, the person receiving the amounts, as in the present case, was legally bound to give the details of payments to respondent, showing any balance or overpayment etc

Present suit was not only, not maintainable, but was very bad in the eye of law and merited rejection at the very inception

Witnesses of the plaintiff stated that they gave some cloth to the respondent from the store of appellant but they were silent about the price of such cloth

Trial Court, had rightly not relied on the statements of said two witnesses of plaintiff

Respondent had filed/exhibited document as documentary evidence which clearly showed that respondent paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to the appellant

Appellant was using all delaying tactics just to prolong the payment of the suit amount

Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly decreed the suit, however, Chief Court observed that respondent was entitled to receive the profit at the rate prayed in the set off till satisfaction of the decree

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2014 CLD 462 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 7Suit for rendition of accountsScopeCar financeMaintainability of suit for rendition of accountsEssentials

Contention of the plaintiff/ customer was that he had availed car finance and had been regularly paying instalments to the defendant Bank, however, the defendant Bank was illegally charging markup and penalties; hence the suit for rendition of accounts was filed

Suit was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable

Validity

Perusal of the lease agreement between the parties showed that there existed no clause which required the defendant Bank to render any account to the plaintiff, and it had been specifically mentioned in the said lease agreement that the bank shall not be accountable for any liability

Suit for rendition of accounts was an equitable remedy which was available to the plaintiff only if he was entitled to the accounts and had not been given such accounts

Such relief would not arise out of mere contractual relationship or because accounts may have to be examined in the course of a suit but in order to bring a suit for rendition of accounts, one had to see that there had been an open current and mutual account

In order to determine whether a suit for rendition of accounts was maintainable, one had to see if it was really a case of debtor and creditor or only a case of mutual obligation which in the ordinary way resulted in enforceable liabilities on each site

Case of accounts where one party never had any demand against the other, did not fall within such purview and for rendition of accounts there ought to be debit and credit on both sides

For the purpose of maintainability of a suit for rendition of accounts, liability of the other party to render accounts was a basic foundation and such liability did not exist when the relationship was contractual between the parties, however, it existed when there was a fiduciary relationship between the parties as in the case of a partners of a firm, guardian and ward, principle and agent, trustee and beneficiary of the trust

Relationship of the parties, in the present case, was contractual in nature and not fiduciary, therefore the suit for rendition of accounts filed by customer was not maintainable

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.