JUDGMENT Shivdayal, J. 1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent against the appellant for rendition of accounts. 2 The plaintiff's case as stated in the plaint was that in Samvat 2002 the plaintiff dealt in purchasing and selling of Ghee, Sugar, Cotton etc, through the defendant as his corn mission agent; that the defendant did not furnish accounts inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff and that afterwards the defendant sent to the plaintiff a statement of accounts but the same was not correct. The defence was that the plaint was vague; that the statement of accounts which had been sent by the defendant to the plaintiff was correct and that whatever amount had been found due to the plaintiff had been remitted to him by a cheque dated 2nd August 1949. In the pleadings both the plaintiff and the defendant have been described as firms, but it appears that the plaintiff Keshrimal is the sole proprietor of his business carried under the name and style of "firm keshrilal Moolchand"; likewise, Badrilal is the sole proprietor of his business named and styled as Ramlal Ramchandra. 3. The trial Judge held that the plaintiff Was not able to show which items of the statement of accounts sent by the defendant to the plaintiff were incorrect and that the only item of Rs. 500/- which was disputed by the plaintiff was proved to be correct. He dismissed the suit. 4. On appeal by the plaintiff, the judgment of the trial judge has been set aside and the plaintiff's appeal had been allowed. The appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts and has remanded the case to the first court for final disposal. It is against this_ judgment and decree dated 20th September 1955 that this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant firm. 5. Shri Patankar Learned Counsel for the appellant argues that the accounts having already been settled between the parties, there was no question of re-opening them and demanding accounts for the defendant. Reliance is placed on the fact that the defendant had sent a statement of accounts to the plaintiff and thus the only thing that remained in dispute was whether the account was correct or not. Reliance is placed on the fact that the defendant had sent a statement of accounts to the plaintiff and thus the only thing that remained in dispute was whether the account was correct or not. It is urged that the plaintiff did not dispute any particular item, except one and that the plaintiff having not proved fraud or material error, he is not entitled to get the accounts re-opened. 6. The whole case of the defendant is that because he had sent a statement of the accounts to the plaintiff, his duty was over and the plaintiff could not sue for rendition of accounts. In my opinion, the stand taken by the defendant is not sound. If his contention were accepted, an agent will be discharged of his burden to render the accounts to his principal by just sending any sort of statement and then asking the principal to prove fraud or mistake. This will be unreasonable and unjust. It will defeat the object and purpose of Section 213 of the Contract Act "which runs thus:-An agent is bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand. 7. Now, there can be no doubt that the principal's right to demand accounts from his agent comes to an end, where the accounts have already been stated and settled between them. It has been stated in Halsbury's Laws of England that settled accounts cannot, as a rule, be reopened, but the principal may obtain leave to surcharge and falsify them (3rd Edition, Volume I, page 1890). "If the parties can show an omission for which correct account ought to be given, that is, a surcharge, or if any thing is inserted that is, a wrong charge, he is at liberty to show it and that is falsification, but that must be by proof on his side." (Halsbury's Laws of England 2nd Edition Vol. XXIII page 388). 8. Since Shri Patankar's argument is that in the present case the accounts must be deemed as settled because the defendant had already sent to the plaintiff a statement of the accounts, what I have to consider precisely is the effect of an agent sending a statement of accounts to the principal. In my opinion, the agent does not absolve himself by merely sending a statement of accounts to the principal. In my opinion, the agent does not absolve himself by merely sending a statement of accounts to the principal. It is the right of the principal to be satisfied as to the correctness thereof and if he is not so satisfied he is equally entitled to bring a suit for rendition of accounts so that he gets the account examined in the Court. 9. I am aware of the decision of Chagla j. (as he then was) in which it is held Every principal has a right to claim accounts from his agent and the agent is bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand so long as the accounts are not settled. If accounts are submitted and if they are accepted as correct by the other side to whom accounts have been rendered, then in law the accounts are settled or stated. Such settlement of accounts need not be in writing, nor is it necessary that before the accounts are settled they should be gone into by the parties and scrutinised and supported by vouchers. It is sufficient if the accounts are accepted and such acceptance may be inferred by conduct of parties. An account once settled cannot be reopened except on the ground of fraud or mistake or any other ground which the Court considers as having led one of the parties to accept the accounts as correct which in equity would be considered as unconscionable.(Maneklal vs. Jwaladutt I.L.R. 1947 Bom 378). But that case does not help the appellant as I am discussing presently. 10. The question is what are settled accounts ? As ordinarily understood, settled accounts are those which have been understood by the parties or which have been accepted by the party to whom they were sent by the other party. Mere furnishing a statement of accounts is not settling or stating accounts. It requires something more in order that an agent can successfully plead that the accounts cannot be re-opened, He must prove that the accounts were settled or stated. It is laid down in Phillips Higgon Vs. Harper (1954) 1 All. E.R. 116, that settled accounts are accounts which have been agreed between the parties and they are sometimes referred to as accounts stated. It is laid down in Phillips Higgon Vs. Harper (1954) 1 All. E.R. 116, that settled accounts are accounts which have been agreed between the parties and they are sometimes referred to as accounts stated. The mere statement of one party to the other as to how the accounts stand cannot make the accounts stated; the other party must agree that it is right. Pearson J. has held: - A settled and agreed account might be constituted by the parties orally agreeing a final figure for the account as distinct from agreeing a written account, but on the facts of the present case there was no agreement, oral or in writing, of an account and, therefore) no settled and agreed account. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in (1954) 2 All. E.R. 51. 11. On analysis, therefore, the position of the law may be summed up as follows:-- (i) In a suit by the principal against his agent for rendition of accounts, the plaintiff has first to prove that the defendant is an accounting party. As soon as the Court finds in favour of the plaintiff on that point a preliminary decree should be passed in his favour. Then it is for the agent to prove what amounts were received and what disbursements were made by him for his principal. Thereupon the court passes a final decree for the amount found due by one party to the other. (ii) Where accounts have already been settled or stated, the principal has no right to demand accounts afresh or to re-open them. He may, however obtain leave to surcharge and falsify them. (iii) Settled accounts are those which have been agreed between the parties. Acceptance of the accounts by the party to whom they are sent can also be inferred by his conduct. (iv) The agent's duty to render accounts to the principal is not discharged merely by sending a statement to him. 12. After going through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by them I find that in the present case accounts were not settled. What is more, I do not find any pleading of the defendant to the effect that the accounts had already been settled between the parties. 12. After going through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by them I find that in the present case accounts were not settled. What is more, I do not find any pleading of the defendant to the effect that the accounts had already been settled between the parties. There is no whisper of such an allegation in the written statement; all that the defendant contended was that the statement of accounts having been admittedly sent to the plaintiff, the duty of the defendant was over and whatever amount was found due had been remitted to the plaintiff and that according to him, that was the end of the matter. The defendant was examined as a witness by the plaintiff on 25th September 1953. Even in his deposition, he did not say that accounts had been settled between the parties. It is true, that the defendant produced Rameshwar Dayal, D.W. 1, who stated on 24th February 1954 that there had been a mutual settlement of accounts, that Rupees one hundred two and some annas had been found due by Sitaram and that the latter had paid this amount by a cheque which had been sent by 'post'. But, in the first place, this statement cannot be accepted because that was not the case pleaded in the written statement; secondly, this witness said what the defendant himself did not say in his statement in the court; thirdly, the statement was quite vague and general in as much as he gave no particulars as to when, where and how the accounts were settled. No importance of worth can be attached to the statement of Rameshwar Dayal. 13. In this case there is no indication that there was an accounting between the parties What is more the plaintiff challenged by a notice the correctness of the accounts received by him from the defendant. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the accounts had been settled between the parties. The plaintiff has said in his deposition that the statement of accounts was irregular and was lacking in particulars as to dates and other details. 14. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the accounts had been settled between the parties. The plaintiff has said in his deposition that the statement of accounts was irregular and was lacking in particulars as to dates and other details. 14. The conclusion of this discussion is that this is not a case where accounts having been submitted by the agent, were accepted as correct by the other side, nor is there anything to infer by the conduct of the parties that the accounts had been accepted by the principal. 15. The argument of Shri Patankar is that it was for the plaintiff to have first of all disputed and then also to have proved how the statement of accounts sent by the defendant was wrong; and since the plaintiff had merely objected to one entry of Rs. 500/- - and the trial judge found the objection to be wrong nothing further was necessary. In my opinion, this contention is devoid of force. In para 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff said that the defendant had made a wrong entry of Rs. 500/- - and also did not enter other items. This shows that the plaintiff not only disputed the amount of Rs. 500/- but also averred that certain amounts had not been entered. 16. The question whether the statement of accounts was correct or not, will be seen at the time when accounts are taken as directed in the preliminary decree. 17. It is then urged on behalf of the appellant that the lower appellate court has approached the matter perversely. It considered the case as if the burden of proof was on the defendant, when in fact the onus of the issue as framed had been placed on the plaintiff. Shri Patankar suggests that if the appellate Court thought that the onus should have been on the defendant it should have framed a new issue: "Whether the account sent by the defendant was correct" and should have remanded the case. In my opinion the issue suggested by the Learned Counsel, is still open and that is precisely the question which the defendant will now be called upon to answer. In my opinion the issue suggested by the Learned Counsel, is still open and that is precisely the question which the defendant will now be called upon to answer. The issues which have been decided in favour of the plaintiff and in consequence of which a preliminary decree has been passed were: Whether in Samvat 2002 the plaintiff purchased and sold Ghee, sugar, cotton etc. in defendant's Adhat in Samvat 2002? and whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts by the defendant ? I think the issues were properly framed as far as that stage was concerned. 18. For these reasons I do not see any error in the judgment of the first appellate Court. 19. Shri Motilal Gupta Learned Counsel for the respondent objects to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that it is against a remand order. It is urged that the appellate court has remitted the case to the trial judge and as the trial judge had already disposed of the whole suit, the remand order was not covered by Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1. I must observe that the operative portion of the judgment of the first appellate Court is not happily worded. It reads thus From the language employed in it, one thinks that the learned judge has directed the trial judge to pass a preliminary decree instead of himself doing so. But this defect is of no consequence, because earlier in its judgment the Court has clearly held that the result of the decision of issue No, 2 was that the plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary decree. In substance, the appellate Judge has after setting aside the judgment of the trial Judge passed a preliminary decree for accounts in favour of the plaintiff and the operative portion of the judgment of the lower appellate Court must be read as such. This appeal has been filed as one from a preliminary decree and ad valorem Court-fee has been paid. Hence this appeal is competent as one from a decree. 20. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.