C.M. Lodha, J.
1. This is a defendants' revision application directed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 22-9-1972 whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected the petitioners' application for staying the suit under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code.
2. M/s. Sankhla Industries instituted a suit for rendition of accounts against the non-petitioner M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj on 2-5-1972 in the Court of Munsiff, Beawar alleging that they had appointed M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj as their agents for sale of 139 bales of cotton but the latter had not rendered accounts of the same. About two months thereafter M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj instituted the present suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Ajmer against the petitioners M/s. Sankhla Industries and others alleging that by virtueof settled accounts between the parties dated 19-10-1971 a sum of Rs. 6070.50 was outstanding against the defendants. It was therefore prayed that a decree for the said amount along with interest Rs. 607.00 and notice charges Rs. 2.80, total Rs. 6680.30 be passed against the petitioners. After notice of the suit having been served upon them, the defendant-petitioners made an application under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code on 22-9-1972 praying that in view of the suit previously instituted by them on the same facts in the Court of Munsiff, Beawar the present suit may be stayed. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned Additional Civil Judge to whom the suit had been transferred dismissed the petitioners' application on the same day and adjourned the case to 4-10-1972 for filing written statement. In these circumstances the defendant-petitioners have filed this revision application from the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 22-9-1972.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the subject-matter of the two suits is the same and that the Munsiff, Beawar in whose Court the petitioners had instituted the earlier suit for rendition of accounts is competent to grant relief claimed in the present suit by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. It is thus urged that the learned Additional Civil Judge was clearly in error in rejecting the stay application. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied on Srinivas Timber Yard v. Jayaram Shivaji and Sons Firm, ILR (1970) Cut 337.
4. I have gone through the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have come to the conclusion that it is distinguishable on facts. In that case it was not the allegation of the plaintiff in the subsequently instituted suit that the accounts had been settled. On the other hand, it was the common case of the parties in both the suits that the accounts had not been settled. In the previously instituted suit the prayer was for rendition of accounts simpliciter whereas in the subsequently instituted suit the plaintiff claimed a consolidated sum of Rs. 48,882.70 paise as determined by him. Thus it is clear that though the plaintiffs in the two suits sought different reliefs but they did so on identical facts and the Munsiff in whose Court the previous suit had been instituted was competent to grant the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the subsequently instituted suit as admittedly the accounts had not been settled. On the other hand in the present case the plain-tiff-non-petitioner has claimed a specific sum i.e., Rs. 6680.30 paise on the ground that the accounts between the parties had been settled, and the defendants had also signed the accounts, after settling the same. There is no denying the fact that the suit as framed by the non-petitioner on the basis of settled accounts for Rs. 6680.30 is beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsiff, Beawar and cannot be tried by him. The natural corollary of this is that the Munsiff, Beawar in whose court the petitioners had instituted the suit for rendition of accounts is not competent to grant the relief claimed by the non-petitioner plaintiff in the present suit. It is well settled that the essence of accounts stated is that the parties mutually agree that the balance only is payable. Such a transaction creates a new debt and a new cause of action, and further that the parties are not entitled to get the accounts so settled reopened unless any one of them is able to prove fraud, undue influence, coercion etc., which go to vitiate a contract.
5. It is true, that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the Munsiff comes to the conclusion that the accounts had not been settled and the same have to be rendered, in that case he can pass a decree for any amount in favour of either party but no assistance can be derived by the petitioners from this proposition because here, it is the definite case of the plaintiff-non-petitioner that the accounts had been settled and signed. Thus it is clear that the relief as claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit on the basis of settled accounts cannot be granted by the Munsiff.
6. The result is that I uphold the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 22-9-1972 and dismiss this revision application with costs.