JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the plaintiffs, to have an account from the defendants of a Sarafi business alleged to have been carried on by them in Karwi as agents for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs carry on a Sarafi business in Karwi under the style, of Sukha Ram Ram Chand, and their case is that they started a branch firm in the same town, and appointed as managers of that firm the defendant, Raghunath, and his brother Sheo Sahai, since deceased. Sheo Sahai and Raghunath were proprietors of a cloth shop in Karwi which was carried on under the style of Sheo Sahai Raghunath. The defendants allege that Sheo Sahai and Raghunath were not agents of the plaintiff's firm in regard to the branch business so started but were partners with them, and the main question in the case is whether or not a partnership subsisted between these persons. [His lordship after discussing the evidence continued:—] 2. The learned Subordinate Judge was satisfied upon the evidence that Sheo Sahai and Raghunath were not partners with the plaintiff's firm but were, as the plaintiffs alleged, merely carrying on the business of the branch shop as agents and receiving the remuneration to which we have referred. In the conclusion at which he arrived we entirely concur. We think that all circumstances tend to show that there was no partnership between these persons, but that the real relationship subsisting between them was that alleged by the plaintiffs. Upon this finding we agree with the Court below, and we affirm so much of the decree of the Court below as declares that no partnership subsisted between these parties and that their relationship was that of principals and agents. But having so found, the Court ought in accordance with the express provisions of section 215A of the Code of Civil Procedure, to have directed an account to be taken such as was asked for in the plaint. Instead of doing so, the Court entertained the question of the accounts and came to the conclusion that in respect of the profits of the business, it was reasonable to allow a certain sum to the plaintiffs. This sum is not arrived at upon any account furnished by the defendants or appearing in any account books. It is mere guess work. This sum is not arrived at upon any account furnished by the defendants or appearing in any account books. It is mere guess work. It has been pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Hurrinath Rai Bahadur v. Krishna Kumar Bakshi, [1886] L.R., 13 I.A., 123 that in a suit for an account, the Court following the general rule ought not to make a final decree at the hearing but should order an account to be taken of the agent's dealings with the plaintiff's money. That is the course which the Court below ought to have followed. On finding that there was no partnership between, the defendants and the plaintiffs, the Court ought to have directed the usual agency accounts to have been taken. 3. The same question came before this Court in the case of Ram Dass v. Bhagwat Dass[1904] 1 A.L.J.R., 347. There the Court held that the fact of agency being established, it is the duty of the Court to fix a date for the furnishing of accounts, and that once the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is an accounting party, then it is for the defendant to prove the amount of his receipts and disbursements. The present case illustrates the propriety of having an account so taken because if the defendant who is an accounting party, refuses or neglects to furnish an account, then it is open to the other side to take advantage of the provisions of section 260 of the Code of Civil Procedure and enforce obedience to the order of the Court to account by imprisonment, or by attachment of property, or both. We therefore must in tin's respect allow this appeal and set aside the decree of the Court below. We therefore must in tin's respect allow this appeal and set aside the decree of the Court below. Instead of the decree which has been passed we direct that a decree be prepared in the terms of the prayer of the plaintiff's plaint, directing that the defendants do before the 15th of February, 1905, render an account of the agency business carried on by them on behalf of the plaintiffs as their agents and with the capital supplied by the plaintiffs, and that a decree be passed for any sum which may be found to be due by the defendants to the plaintiffs on the taking of such accounts-We accordingly direct that the record be sent back to the Court below with directions that the order of this Court may be promptly carried out and a decree passed according to law. We think that the respondents are entitled to their costs, and we accordingly so order.