JUDGMENT
S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. Plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision.
2. After the preliminary decree in a suit for accounts, plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court for a special direction as envisaged under Order 20, Rule 17, C. P. C., to direct the Commissioner for taking all the accounts in the mode as indicated in the application which is not necessary to be elaborated in this order. Amongst other reasons, the trial Court rejected the application, stating :
“Order 20, Rule 17, C. P. C., has specifically stated that the Court may give a special direction regarding to the mode in which the account to be taken, while one special direction has already been given by the learned Sub-judge, the contention of the learned lawyer for the plaintiff to issue further special direction in contrary to the direction already given by the learned Sub-Judge may not be accepted.”
3. Order 20 Rule 17, C. P. C., reads as follows :
“The Court may either by the decree directing an account to be taken or by any subsequent order give special directions with regard to the mode in which the account is to be taken vouched and in particular may direct that in taking the account the bocks of account in which the accounts in question have been kept shall be taken as prima facie evidence of the truth of the matters therein contained with liberty to the parties interested to take such objection thereto as they may be advised.”
The clear language of this provision leaves no room for doubt that even after a preliminary decree, a special direction can be given. Whether such a direction would be given would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even if it is assumed that a special direction has been given to the decree, it would be no ground to refuse to exercise jurisdiction under this provision in case the circumstances, so called for.
4. Mr. B. B. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the decree no special direction was given excepting that accounts shall be rendered by the defendant No. 1 within three months failing which a Commissioner is to be appointed to take the accounts. This cannot be said to be a special direction. In all account suits in the preliminary decree, a direction of this nature as given by the trial Court is common and it cannot be said to be a special direction.
5. Since the order is outcome of non-consideration of Order 20, Rule 17, C. P. C., in its correct perspective, it is the outcome of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. The order is, accordingly, liable to be set aside on this simple ground. The trial Court is directed to consider the application afresh. The observations in the impugned order should not influence the trial Court while considering the application afresh.
6. In the result, the civil revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.