Nigam, J.C.

1. Assandas and Vassudev filed S.C.C. Suit No. 760 of 1950 against Thakumal claiming a decree for Rs. 500/-. The plaintiffs came to the Court with the statement that they had a joint family concern at Gadro (Pakistani which has now been dissolved. Plaintiff 2 was the manager and plaintiff 1 was and is the karta of the joint Hindu family of the plaintiffs and the other coparceners. This firm acted as commission agents for defendant as for transactions in cloth and ghee. The accounts commenced on 12-10-1946 and continued upto 4-12-1947. In this account an amount of Rs. 400/- paid by one Thakumal Dewandas on 12-5-1947 was wrongly credited by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant. About the month of January 1949 when the plaintiffs settled the accounts of Thakumal Dewandas, the mistake was discovered. The plaintiffs informed the defendant of this mistake and asked him to pay the total amount of Rs. 500/- which the defendant avoided.

2. The defendant contested the suit and the learned Judge, Small Causes, framed the following issues: (1) Is the claim due (2) Is S. 69, Partnership Act a bar (3) Is the defendant entitled to instalments, if so, what

3. The learned Judge, Small Causes, held that a sum of Rs. 500/- was due to the plaintiff that S. 69, Partnership Act, did not bar the suit and that the defendant was not entitled to instalments. Accordingly, the learned Judge, Small Causes, decreed the suit for Rs. 500/- with costs and allowed future interest at Rs. 4 per cent, per annum. Against that judgment and decree, Thakumal, defendant, has come up in revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

4. The first point pressed by the learned counsel is that there were other partners in the firm. The learned counsel refers to the statement of defendant Thakumal who deposed that Gopal Dass, Radhomal and Rupchand were also partners in the firm. There is no other evidence on this point. The plaintiffs stated that the firm is joint family firm and there was no cross-examination on this point. None of the three persons Gopal Dass, Radhomal and Rupchand were examined. In the circumstances, I am unable to hold that there were any other partners and that the firm was not a joint family firm. I am confirmed in my opinion by the fact that no other person sought to claim the amount from the defendant.

5. The second point urged by the learned counsel is that the suit did not lie in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, in view of Arts. 19 and 31 of Sch. 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Article 19 refers to suits for a declaratory decree, not being suit instituted under Rr. 63 and 103 of Order 21, Civil P. C. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel that the plaintiff, in tact, only wanted a declaration of the amount due is not entitled to any weight. The plaintiffs plainly wanted, a money decree and I am unable to consider this as a suit for a mere declaratory decree. Article 31 refers to suits for accounts. The learned counsels contention is that as it was necessary to go into accounts in the present case, Art.31 would bar the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. I am unable to Agree. The plaintiffs suit is for a specific amount which has wrongly been credited in the defendants account with the firm of the plaintiffs and in my opinion it was not at all necessary to investigate the various items in the accounts and therefore Art. 31 would not bar the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes.

6. The last point urged by the learned counsel is that the plaintiff actually sought a rectification of the accounts amounting to a reopening of the account and this he could not be permitted to do. The learned counsel has urged that there was a settlement of accounts between the parties on 2-8-1947. Then Rs. 12/- were paid by the defendant and the debit balance was carried to the fresh sheet. The learned counsel has also pointed out that interest on the balance was calculated upto that date. The learned counsel has referred me to ... Doma v. Govind, : AIR 1944 Nag 124 (A). The portions relied upon by the learned counsel are at pp. 128 and 129. They read:

When parties settle accounts, the presumption ought to be that they have settled the accounts with their eyes open and that they Knew what the accounts contained and then decided what the settlement ought to be. A party who wishes to re-open a settled account has, therefore, to make out a very strong case on the ground either of fraud or of substantial mistake of both parties. Mere unreasonableness of some items has never been held to be a ground for re-opening accounts.

At page 129 the passage relied upon is:

If a party wishes to re-open a settled account he has to specify clearly the grounds on which he claims permission to re-open and the items to which he takes objection as being entered fraudulently or through mistake.

7. I am of opinion, that this ruling will not help the learned counsel. In the present case no objection was being taken to the decided items. In the ruling referred to an objection was taken to certain cinema charges (it was a case of accounts between the partners of a dissolved firm). In the present, case the plaintiffs case plainly is that a wrong entry of Rs. 400/- was made in the account of the defendant and that this was mainly on account of the mistake fact on the part of both the parties.

8. The learned counsel has also urged that there was no legal or sufficient evidence on the record to justify the decree. The learned counsels argument is that the learned trial Judge relied upon an admission of the plaintiff which could not have been admitted in evidence, statement of accounts the scribe of which was not examined and on oral evidence which was discrepant as to the place of payment of Rs. 400/-. The learned counsel seeks to assail finding of fact. I am unable to agree that the decision of the learned trial Judge is open to objection. The case between the parties plaint was whether it was the defendant or the firm Thakumal Dewandas which had paid the amount received by the plaintiffs on 12-5-1947. The plaintiffs made an attempt to explain the entry in their account books and showed hove the credit entry in favour of the defendant came in their account books. The evidence or behalf of the defendant that a sum of Rs. 400/- was paid by the defendant was in my opinion rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge, in the circumstances, I do not see how the finding of the learned trial judge can be said to be incorrect.

9. No other point has been pressed before me. I, therefore, see no force in this revision application and dismiss it with costs.