' SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This is an application filed by the defendant bank under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (C.P.C.) for rejection of plaint.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/ defendant bank that the suit was filed primarily for. Seeking the relief of rendition of account which is not maintainable in law in view of the contractual relationship between the parties. It was further stated that the cross-suit filed by defendant bank against the plaintiff (COS No,71 of 2012) has already been decreed on 11.02.2015.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff while referring to judgment reported as Haji Abdul Kareem and others v. Messrs Florida Builders (Pvt.) Limited PLD 2012 SC 247 submitted that the question of maintainability of the suit is different from rejection of the plaint. It was further stated that the exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Limits the role of a Court to only look at the contents of the plaint. It was also contended that the suit is maintainable in the facts and circumstances narrated in the plaint.
4. The perusal of-the plaint shows that the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant bank withdrew an amount of Rs,1,303,770,176/- from the current account and deposited a sum of Rs,1,809,700,527.94 and, therefore, the account must show a credit balance of Rs,505,930,351.94. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendant bank made numerous unauthorized debit entries and charged mark up and is now claiming amounts which are not due and payable by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, it is averred, time and again requested the defendant bank to provide the statement of account from the date of inception in order to ascertain the correct liability which was refused with mala fide intention. In this context, the primary prayer of rendition of account is made in the plaint with further ancillary reliefs for the appointment of chartered accountant and declaration regarding the execution of blank documents.
5. It is settled law that a suit for rendition of accounts is not maintainable where the parties, to the suit are in a contractual relationship. The procedure for regulating the suits for rendition of account is provided for in Order XX Rule 16, C.P.C. The said provision pertains to the procedure and, therefore, does not create any substantive right for a party to seek rendition of accounts by filing a suit in every case where such accounts were not provided. In fact, the procedure provided for in Order XX Rule 16, C.P.C. Would only apply where there already exists a right to seek rendition of accounts. The survey of judgments from our jurisdiction and from India shows that rendition of accounts is normally confined to specific cases where relationship is of such a nature that the relief of rendition of accounts will only enable the plaintiff to assert his legal right. Furthermore, a suit for rendition of accounts can be maintained if the plaintiff indeed has a right to receive an account from the defendant. Such a right can either stem from a statute or it may be based on a relationship that is fiduciary in character. The right, to seek accounts, however, cannot be claimed because the plaintiff does not know the exact amount due to him. In a judgment reported as Messrs Friend Engineering Corporation, The Mall, Lahore v. Government of Punjab and 4 others 1991 SCM R 2324, it was held as under:-- ' Court is empowered to pass a preliminary decree where it feels necessary that to ascertain the amount due to orie party from the otherside, the accounts should be taken---when the relationship between the parties was contractual, the respondent (Department) were not under any obligation to render accounts to the appellant (Contractor) for work done, the material supplied to the department (respondent) by the contractor (appellant) and the payments received from them by the contractor were well within his knowledge and it was for him to have ascertained the amount due to him and filed a money suit for recovery thereof.
6. The Indian Supreme Court explained the scope of a suit for rendition of accounts in Narandas Morardas Gajiwala v. SPAM Papammal AIR 1967 SC 333 by stating the following:-- ' In our opinion, the statute is not exhaustive and the right of the agent to sue the principal for accounts is an equitable right arising under special circumstances and is not a statutory right....
Though an agent has no statutory right for an account from his principal, nevertheless there may be special circumstances rendering it equitable that the principal should account to the agent The right of the agent may also arise in an exceptional case where his remuneration depends on the extent of dealings which are not known to him or where he cannot be aware of the extent of the amount due to him unless the accounts of his principal are gone into.
' Similarly, while dilating upon the right of a contractor to maintain a suit for rendition of accounts, the Indian Supreme Court in K.C. Skaria v. Govt. Of State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 811 held and another as under:-- ' Let us now examine whether a contractor engaged to execute a particular work can file a suit for accounts against the employer in regard to payment for the work done. Such a right is not created or recognized by any, statute. The independent contractor is not an agent of the employer. Nor is the employer in the position of a trustee with reference. To the independent contractor. Can the claim be supported in equity by stating that where the relationship is such that rendition of accounts is the only relief which will, enable the contractor to satisfactorily assert his legal right? A contractor who is engaged to execute a work, is expected to maintain his own accounts. At all events, there is no bar for a contractor to keep an account of the work done. Even where the contract between the employer and the independent contractor may provide for payment on the basis of measurements to be recorded by the employer, nothing prevents the contractor from measuring the work done by him and then suing for the value of the work done. The contractor may also demand joint- measurements to determine the quantum of work done. If the employer for some reason does not co-operate or prevents the contractor from taking physical measurements, the contractor can seek appropriate legal remedy which will enable, him to take measurements or to secure the information from the measurement book in the custody of the employer. Therefore, either the fact that the measurement book is maintained by the employer, or the fact that the contractor does not possess the exact measurements, will not entitle the contractor to file a suit for rendition of accounts against the employer.
' It was also held in the said judgment that:-- It is now well-settled that the right to claim rendition of accounts is an unusual form of relief granted only in certain specific cases and to be claimed when the relationship between the parties is such that the rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the plaintiff to satisfactorily assert his legal right [vide Jowahar Singh v. Haria Mal (1989) 60 PR 1899, followed in Gulam Qutab- ud-din-Khan v. Mian Faiz Bakhsh (AIR 1925 Lahore 100), State of Jammu and Kashmir v. L. Tota Ram (AIR 1971 J&K 71), Triloki Nath Dhar v. Dharmarth Council (AIR 1975 J&K 76)]. The right to seek rendition of accounts is recognized in law in administration suits for accounts of any property and for its administration, suits by a partner of a firm for dissolution of the partnership firm and accounts, suits by beneficiary against trustee/s, suits by a member of the joint family against the Karta for partition and accounts, suits by co-sharer against other co-sharer/s who has/have received the profits of a common property, suits by principal against an agent, and suits by a minor against a person who has received the funds of the minor.
(emphasis supplied)
7. The ratio of the aforementioned judgments clearly shows that the present suit is not maintainable. In so far as the contention that under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., the Court can only look at the contents of the plaint and is debarred from considering any other material including the written statement, suffice it to state that this Court on 13.11.2014 while framing the issues ordered for treating issue No,1 as a preliminary issue. Issue No,1 of course relates to the maintainability of the suit.
8. After the institution of the present suit, the suit filed by the defendant bank against the plaintiff (COS No,71 of 2012) was decreed on 11.02.2015. The statement of account in respect of which the present suit was filed was made available to the plaintiff in the suit filed by the defendant bank. The said suit was contested by the plaintiff as is apparent from the judgment and decree which also shows that the allegations leveled in the present suit were also taken as a defence. However, this Court while passing judgment and decree in COS No,71 of 2012 did not consider the said defence worthy of merit and accordingly dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the plaintiff.
The only question left to be decided is whether the judgment and decree passed in COS No,71 of 2012 can be considered by this Court in deciding the present application. The fact that decree has been passed against the plaintiff in COS No,71 of 2012 is not disputed. The certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in the said suit has been brought on the record through this application. This Court can, therefore, take notice of the said judgment and decree. The objection of the learned counsel for the plaintiff has no force and is accordingly repelled. By virtue of the said decree, the present suit has become barred under the principle of res judicata.
9. In the result, this application is allowed and the plaint is rejected in terms of under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.