Suit for rendition of account

2018 CLCN 83 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 114Cost of gunny bags supplied to the plaintiffs by the Government, recovery ofSuit for declaration and permanent injunctionMaintainabilityRendition of accountsScope

District Food Controller submitted report with regard to outstanding cost of gunny bags of Government supplied to the plaintiff

Deputy Commissioner directed for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue from the plaintiff

Plaintiff filed suit against the said order which was decreed holding that no such amount should be recovered without rendition of accounts

Validity

Mere report of District Food Controller holding the plaintiff responsible to pay the amount without rendition of accounts would not be enough when status of plaintiff was that he had just rented his house to Food Department

No agreement between plaintiff and Food Department was on record

Plaintiff should challenge the report of District Food Controller which led to a cause of action for him

Both the Courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence on record

Recovery, in question, could not be effected from the plaintiff without rendition of accounts

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Findings recorded in the present judgments would not affect any inquiry to be followed by investigation

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 13 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 5Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, 16Suit for rendition of accountFiling of appeal before wrong forumCondonation of delayScope

Contention of applicant was that for the purpose of fixing the value of suit for court fee and jurisdiction the original decree would be considered as the value of the suit

Validity

Originally suit was filed for rendition of account which was subsequently converted into suit for recovery of specific amount

Value fixed by the plaintiff in the suit or varied by the Trial Court was to be considered for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction for forum of appeal

Value of suit was fixed as Rs. 47,45,176/- and same was also mentioned in the decree sheet and Trial Court had not varied the value of suit fixed by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction

Appeal was competent before the High Court in circumstances

Applicant was required to explain the delay of each day in filing of appeal before wrong forum and pendency of the same before the said forum for condonation of delay from the date of return of appeal to the date of filing of the same before the High Court

Neither same had been pleaded in the application nor delay of each day had been explained by the applicant

Appeal had been filed before the High Court with a delay of one month and twenty days without any explanation of delay of even one day

Delay could not be condoned in the circumstances

No case for condonation of delay had been made out

Application for condonation of delay was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 CLC 772 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. I, R. 10 & O. XX, R. 16Suit for rendition of accountApplication for impleadment as a partyScopeHuge investment of applicants were involved in the present case and they should be impleaded as a party to the suit

Interest of applicants would be protected and safeguarded if they were impleaded as a party to the present suit and same would not adversely affect the interest of any other party to the suit

Application for impleadment as a party was accepted and plaintiff was directed to file amended title and amended plaint within a specified period.

2014 YLR 2506 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & O. XX, R. 16Suit for rendition of accountGrant of temporary injunctionIngredients

Plaintiff had sought rendition of account with regard to "Jharu (sweeping) fund", which was allegedly being collected and misappropriated by the defendants

Plaintiff had prayed injunctive order for restraining the defendants from collection of sweep/jharu fund

Allegations against the defendants were yet to be established by the plaintiff by production of evidence in the suit

Mere levelling allegation would not create any right in favour of a party

Ingredients for grant of temporary injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss were missing in the present case

Plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable loss if stay order was not granted as if suit was decreed and he was found entitled to any relief then he could be compensated subsequently

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out by the plaintiff

Order passed by the court below was in accordance with law

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.