Sheikh Saeed Ahmad vs Rukhsana Jabeen etc.

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

RFA No. 298 of 2025

Sheikh Saeed Ahmad vs Rukhsana Jabeen, etc

S.No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or Order/ order/ counsel where necessary Proceeding proceeding 11.02.2026. Mr. Nadeem Shafi Akhtar, Advocate.

This Regular First Appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan whereby the appellant’s suit for rendition of accounts alongwith recovery of specified amount of money as compensation has been dismissed.

2.The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned judgment and decree, whereby the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed, is against the facts of the case and law on the subject and prays that by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, the suit filed by the appellant be decreed.

3.The perusal of the record shows that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for rendition of account and recovery of specific amount of money as compensation i.e. total amount of Rs.5,63,83,805/- against the respondents by claiming that he is a businessman having import export business in Tanzania and residing in Multan where he is also doing his business. Appellant claims that he had business relationship with Khalid Corporation of Khawaja Khalid Mahmood, the

RFA No.298 of 2025 Dated 11.02.2026

predecessor in interest of the respondents, with whom he entered into a written agreement dated 26.12.2018 and according to the said agreement the predecessor-in- interest of respondents had to pay him an amount of Rs.40,56,500/- out of which he only paid an amount of Rs.38,51,500/- in installment of Rs.24,26,500/- and 14,25,000/- and an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- is still outstanding. It was further claimed that the appellant according to agreement sent to the predecessor of respondents two container of leather which cost Rs.64,38,480/- but the predecessor-in-interest of respondents paid only Rs.38,51,500/- and defaulted in the payment of the remaining amount of Rs.25,86,930/-. Appellant further claims that predecessor-in-interest of respondents on asking of the appellant sent container of cloth sheets and bed sheets from Multan to Tanzania but the custom authorities of Tazania rejected the same as the material was substandard and returned the same for which the appellant had to pay costs and damages but the predecessor in interest of the respondents did not reimburse the same to the appellant. Appellant further claims that due to the abovementioned conduct of predecessor in interest of respondents, he had to suffer losses and his reputation was tarnished resulting in filing of the suit for rendition of accounts and for compensation and damages for total amount of Rs.5,63,83,500/-. The respondents were proceeded against ex-parte and after recording of appellant’s evidence, the said suit was dismissed, hence this appeal.

4.It is also important to note here that procedure for regulating the suits for rendition of accounts was provided for in Order XX, Rule 16 of C.P.C. Said

RFA No.298 of 2025 Dated 11.02.2026

provision pertained to the procedure, and, therefore, did not create any substantive right for a party to seek rendition of accounts by filing suit in every case where such accounts were not provided. Procedure provided in Order XX, Rule 16, C.P.C., would only apply where there already existed a right to seek rendition of accounts. Rendition of accounts was normally confined to specific cases where relationship was of such a nature that the relief of rendition of accounts would only enable the plaintiff to assert his legal rights. Furthermore, a suit for rendition of accounts could be maintainable if the plaintiff indeed had a right to receive an account from the defendant. Such a right could either stem from a statute or it may be based on a relationship that was fiduciary in character. For the aforementioned reasoning, principles laid down in Messrs Irfan Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive versus Standard Chartered Bank through Chief Executive Officer and another (2017 MLD 312 Lahore = 2017 CLD 223 Lahore) have been referred.

5.The claim of the appellant is based on an agreement between him and the predecessor in interest of the respondents and he seeks rendition of account from the respondents who had not directly entered into any agreement with the appellant rather have been impleaded as legal heir of Khawaja Khalid Mahmood of Khalid Corporation with whom he states to have entered into an agreement for import and export of leather and bed sheets, etc. Appellant appeared in the witness box as PW- 1 and in support of his claim produced Fayyaz Khan s/o Kachkol Khan as PW-2 and Ishtiaq Hussain s/o Mushtaq Hussain as PW-3. In support of his contentions, the appellant has also produced documentary evidence,

RFA No.298 of 2025 Dated 11.02.2026

which is attested copy of agreement dated 26.12.2018 as Exh-P1, original receipts of payment as Exh-P2, original certificate of inspection as Exh-P3, documents of original collection, Bank Africa/Tanzania through Bank of Punjab as Exh-P4, Tax Notice Tanzia as Exh-P5, penalty notice as Exh-P6, original receipts as Exh-P7, original notice tax as Exh-P8, original receipts funds transfer as Exh-P9, original bill of landing as Exh-P10 and attested copy of suit titled Rukhsana Jabeen etc. Vs Saeed Ahmad along with order dated 19.07.2024 as Exh-P11.

6.The appellant could not place on the record any document whereby a direct agreement was entered between the appellant and the respondents rather his claim is based on agreement with the predecessor in interest of the respondents, through which the appellant and predecessor of respondents had agreed to transact a deal of import and export, whereas for seeking rendition of account the appellant was required to show that he had some fiduciary relationship with the respondents who were obliged to provide accounts to him, which has not been done. Although appellant has referred to a photocopy of document dated 21.02.2019 purported to be extension of contract with him by the respondents but the said document was not produced or exhibited in evidence, hence, cannot be relied upon at this stage. The respondents were neither the partners nor agents of the appellant to be accountable to him for their deeds and actions, whereas for the purpose of maintainability of a suit for rendition of accounts, liability of the other party to render accounts was a basic foundation and such liability did not exist when the relationship was contractual between the parties, however, it existed

RFA No.298 of 2025 Dated 11.02.2026

when there was a fiduciary relationship between the parties as in the case of a partners of a firm, guardian and ward, principal and agent, trustee and beneficiary of the trust. Relationship of the parties, in the present case, was contractual in nature and not fiduciary, therefore the suit for rendition of accounts filed by appellant against the respondents was not maintainable. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Muhammad Azam Khan versus Askari Leasing Limited through Branch Manager (2014 CLD 462 Lahore). Same principle has been reiterated in various other judgments including Hadi Hussain and 07 others Vs. Officer Commanding 703 Pak Works Section and 03 others (2019 YLR 2413) and Town Committee, Juharabad through Tehsil Nazim, District Khushab Versus Falak Sher (2003 CLC 71 Lahore).

7.Furthermore, as the appellant has inter alia, based his claim on partnership, in order to establish the claim of the appellant that the business was done in partnership with the predecessor in interest of the respondents, he was required to establish existence of fiduciary relationship such as partnership or agency coupled with the fact that the respondents were legally bound to account to him, but no such document has been produced, which was a pre-requisite for seeking rendition of account, hence the claim of partnership does not stand established to entitle him to seek the aforementioned relief. Reliance may be placed on Syed Tahir Hussain Shah Vs. Syed Saeed Anwar Shah (2013 CLD 630 Lahore), wherein it is provided as under:- “6. In a suit for rendition of account the plaintiff is required to establish (a) partnership (b)

RFA No.298 of 2025 Dated 11.02.2026

share of each member in the partnership (c) profit or loss (d) type of business (e) duration of partnership (f) accounts.”

8.Even otherwise, the contents of plaint as well as deposition of PWs is also silent regarding any fiduciary relationship between the appellant and the respondents, holding them to be accountable to him. Further in support of his claim the appellant has produced copy of agreement dated 24.12.2018 as Exh-P1 which is not a registered document and being merely an agreement does not confer any legal rights except a right to seek its enforcement through a court a law and without seeking enforcement from a court of law such an unregistered document has no value in the eye of law. At this stage, reference has been made to Exh-P11 which is a suit for recovery and rendition of accounts filed by the respondents with alternate relief of possession of property through specific performance of contract dated 24.12.2018 to claim that as suit for rendition of accounts has also been filed by the other side, hence, the instant suit seeking rendition of accounts is also maintainable. Suffice it to observe that the other party filed a suit for rendition of accounts on 31.01.2020 whereas the instant suit has been filed on 16.01.2023 probably as a counterblast and the afore referred suit filed by the other side would be decided on its own merits in accordance with law by the court where the same is pending and mere pendency of the same would not make the instant suit maintainable especially when the conditions precedent for filing of such suit do not exist in the present case, hence, instant suit for rendition of accounts was not maintainable.

RFA No.298 of 2025 Dated 11.02.2026

9.In view of above discussion, appellant has failed to prove all the ingredients for rendition of accounts as discussed above through cogent, solid and confidence inspiring evidence hence, the suit of the appellant could not succeed and has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial court, which findings recorded by the learned trial court do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of record and illegality or jurisdictional defect for this Court to warrant any interference in the same, hence this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

(SYED AHSAN RAZA KAZMI) (MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR)

JUDGE JUDGE

Naveed *

APPROVED FOR REPORTING: