JUDGMENT : Stanley, J. The decree of the learned District Judge cannot be supported. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to have an account from the defendant of rents and profits of certain properties which as the plaintiff alleged were entrusted to the management, and agency of the defendant. The District Judge found that the defendant did act on behalf of the appellant in the management of the property, and that he was therefore liable to render accounts to the plaintiff. Having found this fact, it was the duty of the District Judge, following the procedure prescribed in section 215A of the Code of Civil Procedure to have passed an order directing the accounts to be taken. Where a suit is for an account, all the evidence necessary to be adduced in order to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, is evidence to show that the defendant is an accounting party. The District Judge, however, has dismissed the suit for a reason which to us is somewhat unintelligible. He says that “the appellant has not proved what amount of rents were collected in the period in suit from December, 1895, to September, 1900.” Now the onus did not lie on the plaintiff to prove the amount of rent collected by the defendant. That was a matter within the knowledge of the defendant and a matter as to which the plaintiff would ordinarily be in ignorance. Then the District Judge proceeds later on in his judgment to say:— “In order to obtain a decree, the appellant should have satisfied the Court that there is or ought reasonably to have been some surplus in the hands of the respondent.” This is wholly wrong. The law does not impose any duty upon a plaintiff, who calls on his agent to account, first to satisfy the Court that there is or ought reasonably to have been some surplus in the hands of the agent. The fact of agency having been established, it was the duty of the Court to fix a date for the furnishing of the accounts as is laid down in the case of Ajudhia Baksh Singh v. Sheo Mangal Singh, [1883] A.W.N., 218. If the defendant failed to furnish the accounts on the day fixed, it may then possibly be that the plaintiff will be obliged to take the measures pointed out by the learned Judges in that case. If the defendant failed to furnish the accounts on the day fixed, it may then possibly be that the plaintiff will be obliged to take the measures pointed out by the learned Judges in that case. We must allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Courts and remand the appeal, under the provisions of section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with directions that it be replaced on the file of pending appeals and be disposed of, on the merits, having regard to the observations made by us in our judgment. The costs here and hitherto will abide the event.