statement sent by the plaintiff for the period from 01.06.1986 to 25.12.1999. When resumption of supply was sought for without reconciliation of accounts, under Ex.P26, letter dated 27.08.1992, it was replied that resumption could not take place. In fact, this letter was also referred to by the learned single Judge. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge, the claim made by the defendant under Ex.B5, letter that a sum of Rs.77 lakhs is due and it was not considered by the auditor cannot be accepted. As seen above, in the auditors report emanated after consideration of all the material records and no bias can be attributed to such report of the auditor. In fact, the auditor came to be appointed by the learned single Judge at the instance of the defendant/appellant by filing application No. 5665 of 1995. The defendant only wanted the whole exercise to be done by an independent auditor and based on such claim, this Court appointed the auditor. We could also see that the Court appointed auditor had undertaken comprehensive verification of the records, reconciled the accounts and thereafter submitted their final report. Therefore, the finding of the learned single Judge is not only based on the evidence on record, but on the basis of the report of the auditor. In these circumstances, the contention of the appellant that the respondent ought to have filed a suit for rendition of account, instead of filing the suit for recovery of amount cannot be accepted. The suit as filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein is maintainable. We could also see that the learned single Judge, on the basis of the auditors report, rightly rejected the counter-claim made by the defendant/appellant. In a particular situation, it is open to the principal to accept the statement of accounts as a rendition of accounts by the agent and file a suit in respect of specific item without asking for the relief of rendition of accounts. It only means that the defendant is relieved of his liability to render accounts and plaintiff takes the responsibility for making good his charges as against the agent. Therefore, we hold that there is nothing wrong in the plaintiff filing a suit on the basis of records for recovery of money without seeking the relief of rendition of account. In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the suit, as filed by the plaintiff, is maintainable in law.
