JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Dalip, Singh Sachar has filed the suit for rendition of accounts and mesne profits against the defendant M/s Maa Karni Coal Carries Pvt. Ltd. It has been asserted that plaintiff is the owner of two tipping trucks bearing No. MPH-2415 and MPH-2416. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant with respect to employment of two tipping trucks. Since the date of entering into the agreement with defendant company, it is asserted that defendant has failed to render any accounts with respect to the said trucks and failed to make the payment to the plaintiff in respect of the two trucks after making deductions in terms of the clauses of the agreement. On 24th May, 1996 the plaintiff requested the defendant with reference to his earlier correspondence to expedite the details and to furnish the business accounts of his tipping trucks. A notice even had been issued in this regard. The plaintiff had been requesting for the payment of the credit shown in Schedule 8 of balance sheet dated 14th October, 1996 in respect of earning tipper trucks. It is claimed that the defendant has not furnished the accounts and hence the present suit has been filed seeking a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts directing the defendant to render true and correct accounts and for appointment of a local commissioner for taking the accounts from the defendant in respect of the income of the two tipping trucks besides recovery of the amount that may be found due and interest.
2. In the written statement filed it has been asserted that plaintiff is guilty of suppression of facts.
3. It is asserted that in the meeting of Board of Directors of the defendant company on 25th April, 1996 the economic profile of the company including the performance of the tipper trucks was discussed. Despite the rate contract having not been finalised by the principal employer of the company, the company has not been able to repay the Installment. The meeting was attended by the plaintiff. In the Annual General Meeting of 14th October, 1996 Directors report, Profit and Loss Account were sent to the plaintiff. The report including the account of the tipper trucks had also been signed. It is asserted that the plaintiff himself is in debt. It is alleged that no amount of Rs. 8 lakh was due as payable to the plaintiff. It is denied that any alleged amount of Rs. 8,64,730/- was due or payable to the plaintiff. The figures so arrived at by the plaintiff is stated to have been imaginative. The actual state of accounts had been explained to the plaintiff in the meeting of 2nd November, 1996. It has been alleged further that company had paid Rs. 6,03,601/-.
4. An application has been filed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that written statement had been filed on 8th September, 1997. The audited balance sheet for the period ending 31st March, 1996 the defendant has shown a credit balance of Rs.1,00,259/- in favor of the plaintiff. In the same paragraph the defendant has raised a plea that there is a debit balance of Rs. 1,59,635/-. It is claimed that keeping in view the totality of the written statement filed, a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts may be passed.
5. The application as such is being opposed contending that in the written statement filed by the defendant which forms the basis of the instant application there is no averment which admits the claim of the plaintiff in clear and unambiguous terms.It is denied that any claim as such had been admitted and on the contrary plea has been raised that no amount as such is payable.
6. Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been enacted with the purpose to curtail the delay in the suits. Even in the written statement there are admissions which are clear or unambiguous. To that extent the suit of the plaintiff can be allowed. A roving enquiry will not be made but the court can indeed come to a logical conclusion even on the basis of the pleadings in this regard.
7. In the present case in hand it is patent that there is no clear admission that the amount claimed is due. As such it will not be appropriate in these circumstances not to permit the defendant to contest the claim. In that view of the matter at this stage the plea of the plaintiff must fail and IA 10323/97 is dismissed.
Suit No. 73/97
8. To come up for framing of the issues on 25th January, 2002.