G.R. Luthra, J.
(1) DEFTS. obtained a contract for the supply of fresh potatoes to Army and they entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs that the latter should make supplies on their behalf and would be entitled to collect 90% of the value of supplies made and that the balance 10% would be collected by Defts. who would deduct their commission and expenses and pay rest to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleging, that they were made certain payments, sued Defts. for accounts on the plea that same were known to and maintained by the Defts Defts. raised a preliminary objection that suit for accounts did not lie]. After detailing above, order proceeds.
(2) There is no doubt and it was also common ground between the parties at the time of arguments that for the purpose of deciding maintainability of a suit only the allegations contained in the plaint are to be taken as correct. Of course, it would be different when the suit proceeds do merits. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding this issue assertions of the plaintiff are being presumed to be correct.
(3) In Narandas Morards Gajiwala v. S. P. A. M. Papammal. , it is laid down that according to Section 213 of the Contract Act a principal has legal right to bring a suit for rendition of account against an agent but that does not mean that in no other case suit for rendition of accounts can be brought because statute is not exhaustive and the right of the agent to sue the principal for rendition of accounts is equitable one arising under special circum- stances although it is not statutory right, It was further held that an agent can sue for rendition of accounts if he does not possess accounts to enable him to determine his claims for commission or where his remuneration depends upon the extent of dealing which are not known to him or where he cannot be aware of the extent of the amount due to him unless accounts of the principal are gone into.
(4) Similar view was expressed in firm Diwan Chand Sant Ram v. Bhagat Ram, Air 1946 Lah 82 and it was held that suit for accounts is not maintainable unless it is the only relief by which plaintiff can assert his legal rights. Same was the view expressed by the Punjab High Court in The Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Kirpa Ram, and in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Gurdial Singh . Same was the view taken in Basant Kumar Mishra v. Roshan Lal Srivastava, Air 1954 Nag 300 in V. G. Sharma and Co. Firm v. Friends and Co., and in Ram Lal Kapur v. Asian Commerial Assurance Co. Ltd., Air 1933 Lah 483.
(5) It is, therefore, clear from the above that right to claim rendition of accounts is an unusual form of relief but the same must be granted when the relations between the parties and the circumstances are such that such relief is only one which will enable plaintiff to satisfactorily assert his legal rights. In the present case, as the allegations of the plaintiff are, defendants contrary to the agreement dated October 10, 1977, did not enable the plaintiff to receive 90% of the price of the potatoes supplied. Therefore, it was within the knowledge of the defendants as to how much money was received in respect of the supplies. Then defendant is entitled to commission at 2% of the total supply and also necessary expenses incurred. When the defendants only know the entire payments received by them they alone can calculate the commission payable to them. Further it is within the knowledge of the defendants as to how much expenditure was incurred by them in connection with supply of potatoes to the Army. Hence, plaintiffs in the present case cannot satisfactorily assert their rights and cannot calculate any specific amount payable to them unless and until defendants render the accounts. That being so, suit for accounts is maintainable.