JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Defendant is the Appellant. Plaintiff brought the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 7590/11/- found on accounting between the parties. According to the Plaintiff's case, he had business in cloth and yarn in 1951 which were to be imported from outside. Defendant was appointed as the Agent for the Plaintiff at Bombay to make purchase as per the allotments made to the Plaintiff every month by the Government of Orissa and to arrange for their despatch to the destination in Orissa. 2. Defendant denies Plaintiff's claim. His case is that on accounting a sum of Rs. 1979/4/6 is due to him from the Plaintiff and that the only Court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit is the Court at Bombay as by agreement the parties had settled that all their disputes should be subject to the Bombay jurisdiction. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the Plaintiff's claim and held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. Mr. B.K. Pal, on behalf of the Appellant, advanced three contentions: Firstly, that the Subordinate Judge, Jeypore, had no jurisdiction to try the suit: Secondly, that the parties being admittedly principal and agent a preliminary decree for accounts should have been passed; and Thirdly, that the document filed by him in the High Court should be accepted under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC as additional evidence, and if those documents are accepted, Defendant's case would be established and the Plaintiff's case would be disproved. 5. Section 21, CPC runs as follows: No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or versional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. Assuming that the agreement can be construed to mean that the jurisdiction of all Courts excepting that of Bombay were ousted, Defendant must have to establish that there has been failure of justice on account of the trial being held at Jeypore. The wordings of Section 21 are clear and the principle has been well settled in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others. Mr. Pal has failed to bring any circumstances to our notice to establish that there has been failure of justice. The wordings of Section 21 are clear and the principle has been well settled in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others. Mr. Pal has failed to bring any circumstances to our notice to establish that there has been failure of justice. In such circumstances it is not necessary to examine whether the jurisdiction of the Jeypore Court was ousted by mutual agreement. The first contention therefore fails. 6. The second contention is wholly untenable. Plaintiff's suit is one for recovery of a stated amount found out after accounting and on such a claim no decree for accounts can be passed. Mr. Pal relied on Order XX, Rule 16, CPC in support of his argument. Order XX, Rule 16 runs as follows: In a suit for an account of pecuniary transactions between a principal and an agent, and in any other suit not hereinbefore provided for, where it is necessary, in order to ascertain the amount of money due to or from any party, that an account should be taken, the Court shall, before passing its final decree, pass a preliminary decree directing such accounts to be taken as it thinks fit. It does not support Mr. Pal's contention. 7. The last contention is that the documents referred to in the memorandum of appeal and filed along with it should be admitted as additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27. Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly all these documents were in the custody of the Defendant. No case has been made out for admission of such additional evidence. The true test in such cases is whether the appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration all the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh 2. There is no substance in this contention. 8. All the contentions fail and the appeal is dismissed, but there will be no order for costs of this Court. Das, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed