***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. –

The appellants-defendants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ellenabad, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.2,72,222/- alongwith interest, and the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed. The trial Court ultimately directed payment of Rs.2,72,222/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined the challenge to one question, namely, that the suit, as originally instituted for rendition of accounts, was not maintainable. It is submitted that the plaintiff was himself aware of the quantity and value of the agricultural produce sold by him and had specifically pleaded the value of the three transactions. Therefore, according to learned counsel, there was no occasion for seeking rendition of accounts and the suit ought to have been dismissed on that ground. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Skaria v. Government of State of Kerala and another, (2006) 2 SCC 285.

3. There can be no quarrel with the proposition laid down in K.C. Skaria (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a suit for rendition of accounts is an unusual form of relief and can be maintained, where the plaintiff has a right to receive accounts from the defendant, such right being founded upon a statute, fiduciary relationship or, in an appropriate case, equity. Mere convenience or the plaintiff's lack of knowledge of the exact amount due would not, by itself, create a right to seek rendition of accounts. The Court also clarified that Order XX Rule 16 CPC is procedural in nature and does not itself create a substantive right to seek rendition of accounts.

4. However, the aforesaid principle does not conclude the present appeal in favour of the appellants. The distinction between K.C. Skaria (Supra) and the case at hand lies in the nature of the relief ultimately adjudicated and granted.

5. In the present case, although the suit was initially described as one for rendition of accounts and recovery, the controversy was, from the very beginning, with regard to the balance amount allegedly remaining payable to the plaintiff from three identified transactions. The plaintiff pleaded that he had sold agricultural produce to the defendants on 02.11.2008 for Rs.2,81,300/-, on 13.04.2009 for Rs.1,16,685/- and on 17.04.2009 for Rs.2,74,237/-; according to him, Rs.4,00,000/- had been paid and the balance amount remained outstanding.

6. More importantly, after the matter was remanded by the appellate Court, the trial Court expressly framed Issue No.1 as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs.2,72,222/-, and Issue No.3 as to whether the suit was not maintainable in its present form.

7. Thus, the matter did not remain a pure suit for rendition of accounts. The trial Court adjudicated the substantive claim of recovery and ultimately passed a decree for the specific amount of Rs.2,72,222/- with interest.

8. The first appellate Court has also specifically dealt with the objection now sought to be raised. It noticed that the defendants contended that the plaintiff knew the amount of the transactions and, therefore, a suit for rendition of accounts was not maintainable. The appellate Court, however, found that the case, in its actual substance, stood converted into a suit for recovery and that the plaintiff had already paid the requisite ad valorem court fee.

9. The said approach finds substantial support from the ratio of K.C. Skaria (Supra) itself. In that case, while holding that the independent contractor had no right to seek rendition of accounts against the employer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not hold that the entire suit must necessarily fail. Rather, it specifically observed that where the plaint contains the necessary averments enabling the plaintiff to sue for the value of the work done and the requisite court fee has been paid, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited merely because he had also sought rendition of accounts.

10. The distinction is particularly material here. The plaintiff is not ultimately seeking a decree directing the defendants to render accounts as a condition precedent to determining an unspecified liability. The decree under challenge is a money decree for a quantified sum of Rs.2,72,222/-. The trial Court, after consideration of the evidence, has itself determined that amount and decreed the suit accordingly.

11. The first appellate Court has further noticed that, pursuant to the earlier proceedings, the plaintiff had already paid the appropriate court fee and that the appellate Court, while remanding the matter, had treated the controversy as one involving recovery of Rs.2,72,222/-. The defendants did not challenge that characterization at the relevant stage.

12. It is also significant that the plaintiff's case was not merely that he did not know the amount due. His specific case was that the total value of the three transactions was Rs.6,72,222/-, that he had received Rs.4,00,000/-, and that Rs.2,72,222/- remained unpaid. The trial Court, therefore, had before it a quantified claim capable of adjudication.

13. Consequently, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the original prayer for rendition of accounts was technically not maintainable in view of the principle laid down in K.C. Skaria (Supra), that by itself would not justify dismissal of the entire suit once the plaintiff had sought recovery of the quantified amount and had paid the requisite court fee.

14. The facts of K.C. Skaria (Supra) in fact reinforce rather than assist the appellants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while holding the prayer for rendition of accounts by an independent contractor to be not maintainable, nevertheless restored the decree for the amount which the plaintiff was otherwise entitled to recover.

15. In the present case, therefore, the real question is not whether the plaintiff had an independent substantive right to demand rendition of accounts from the defendants, but whether the decree for the quantified amount of Rs.2,72,222/- can be sustained. The Courts below have answered that question on the basis of the evidence and have ultimately passed a decree for recovery.

16. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff was aware of the precise value of each crop transaction, therefore, does not furnish a ground to non-suit him after the trial Court has adjudicated his quantified claim for recovery. At the highest, it could affect the form of the original prayer for accounts; it does not extinguish the underlying claim for the balance sale consideration, which has been specifically pleaded and adjudicated.

17. The first appellate Court has thus committed no error in holding that the objection regarding maintainability, in the facts of the present case, could not result in dismissal of the suit. Its conclusion that the suit, as ultimately adjudicated, was one for recovery of Rs.2,72,222/- is borne out from the subsequent framing of the issues and the final decree passed by the trial Court.

18. It may also be noticed that the appellants' objection is confined to the form of the suit. No argument has been addressed before this Court against the maintainability of the quantified recovery claim as such. Once the quantified claim was within the scope of the pleadings and the requisite court fee had been paid, the mere use of the expression "rendition of accounts" in the original proceedings cannot defeat the substantive adjudication.

19. Thus, K.C. Skaria (Supra) does not mandate dismissal of the present suit. Rather, the principle emerging therefrom is that a plaintiff cannot use a prayer for rendition of accounts merely as a device to avoid payment of appropriate court fee where no right to accounts exists. That mischief is absent here, particularly when the plaintiff paid the requisite court fee and the ultimate decree is for a specified amount.

20. The objection raised by the appellants, therefore, does not give rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference in the present second appeal.

21. No other ground has been urged.

22. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Appeal dismissed.

********