JUDGMENT : N.N. MITHAL, J. 1. The Plaintiff-Appellant brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 40,954.72 together with pendente lite and future interest against the Defendant-Respondent. The said suit was dismissed on the technical plea of limitation although the trial court has found other points in favour of the Plaintiff. This is how the Plaintiff has come up before this Court, aggrieved against the decision of the Court. 2. In the appeal also mainly the question of limitation has been urged on behalf of the plaintiff which aries in the following manner. 3. The Defendant is a sugar factory in the district of Nainital and was interested in appointing its sole agents in the whole of the territory of the Union of India. Of the two proposed agents, the Plaintiff was one and an agreement was executed between the two on 3rd March, 1959 which is Ex. A-30 on the record. The Plaintiff was required under this agreement, to deposit cash security of Rs. 2 lacs with the Defendant, which is described in the agreement as Manufacturer for a period of two years to ensure due compliance of the work of the agency. This security was to carry an interest at the rate of 4½ % per annum. This amount deposited as security was refundable to the agent i. e. the Plaintiff-Appellant within one month of the expiry of the period fixed in the agreement after adjustment of the accounts between the parties. It was also stipulated that the "manufacturer" would be entitled to realise any loss suffered or expenses incurred and not paid by the Plaintiff from the said amount of security. This amount of security had always to be kept to its full extent and whenever it was to fall short of it, the Plaintiff was required to make it good within 15 days of a notice in writing from the manufacturer. It is alleged that the Plaintiff, as an agent, was entitled to commission of 60 paise per Rs. 100/- on the price of sugar under the orders secured for the supply of the sugar. It is alleged that the Plaintiff, as an agent, was entitled to commission of 60 paise per Rs. 100/- on the price of sugar under the orders secured for the supply of the sugar. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, the Plaintiff has alleged that during the course of its dealing as agent the Defendant also sometimes used to take money on account which was debited to the account of the Defendant In this manner, it is alleged, that a mutual, current and open account was opened between the parties. The Plaintiff maintained an account of the Defendant in which all the transactions were entered and whatever sums were taken by the Defendant from time to time and other expenses incurred by the Plaintiff on 1964, the agency of the Plaintiff came to an end as the sugar had by then become a fully controlled item and the Defendant accordingly returned the security amount of Rs. 2 lacs to the Plaintiff. On the basis of the entries in the account books by the Plaintiff pertaining to the Defendant's account, a sum of Rs. 36,086.10 was alleged to be due and together with 4½ % interest, on 30th January, 1964 the total amount due was Rs. 40,954.72. Since this money was not paid by the Defendant the Plaintiff filed a suit on 27th January, 1967. 4. The Defendant in a detailed written statement denied the various allegations made by the Plaintiff but the relevant paragraph with which we would be concerned now is para 22 wherein it was said that the account between the parties was not mutual, open and current account and the suit was barred by time. The only question on which this Court is required to direct its attention is about the nature of the account and to decide as to whether the suit was barred by limitation. If the account between the parties was found to be of the nature of a mutual, open and current account as alleged by the Plaintiff then, it is undisputed that the suit would be within limitation. 5. The relevant article of the Limitation Act is Article 1 of the 1st Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which is as under: *** *** *** 6. 5. The relevant article of the Limitation Act is Article 1 of the 1st Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which is as under: *** *** *** 6. In order to apply the provisions of this Article, it is necessary to understand as what is meant by the mutual, open and current account. There is no difficulty as regards the open and current account which literally means a continuing account with the possibilities of future transactions in which the balance has not been struck between the parties Or, if struck, has not been admitted as struck by both the parties con-cases in which it has been ascertained, it was not admitted or acknowledged as correct by the parties. The openness of an account is not dependent on the transactions continuing between the parties and even if the dealings between the parties may have stopped, the account may still be open as long as its adjustment or settlement has not taken place but this is not so in the case of a current account. Current account means one which is not closed and the parties still contemplate to continue in future dealings between them Therefore, for an account to be an open and current, it is necessary that it should be a continuing account in which the parties intend to continue to transact business in future and at the same time in which no final settlement of account has taken place to the satisfaction of both the parties. 7. However, even after considering the nature of a current and open account, it still leaves us with the decision of the question as to what is a mutual account. This mutual account provides more difficulty because it has been variously interpreted by the different High Courts from time to time. The Supreme Court in Kesharichand Jaisukhal vs. The Shillong Banking Corporation, AIR 1965 SC 1711 , has approved the observations of Holloway, Acting Chief Justice in Hirada Basappa vs. Gadigi Mudappa, (1871) 6 HCR 142, where it has been observed that in order to constitute mutual dealings: There must be transactions on each side, creating independent obligations on the other, and not merely transactions which create obligations on the one side, those on the other being merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations. 8. 8. Applying the above principle in Keshari Chand vs. Shillong Banking Corporation (supra) it was held that where the bank gave loans on overdraft and the appellant made deposits created independent obligations and shifting balances and there was reciprocal demands between the parties, then the account was thus a mutual, current and open account. 9. From the above observation of the Supreme Court it appears that for an account to be mutual there must be two sets of transactions, one by the Plaintiff against the Defendant and the other by the Defendant against the Plaintiff and both these transactions must give rise to independent obligations on the other side. If the transaction between the parties does not disclose this and it appears that only one side was doing transactions on the other side and the other side had no independent transaction against the former or was merely discharging obligations under such transaction, this would not constitute a mutual account. In the case of a banker and a customer, as in the case of Keshari Chand vs. Shillong Banking Corporation (supra). There were two independent sets of transactions, one by which a deposit was made by the Plaintiff and the other was an independent transaction under which a loan was advanced by the bank to the Plaintiff and on which interest was to be charged. These loans advanced by the Bank to the Plaintiff were to be paid back to the bank irrespective of the amount deposited by the Plaintiff, the only understanding being that at the time of the final account the Plaintiff would be entitled to the final amount after adjustment of payments made and received in both the accounts. It was however, clearly held that the two transactions were quite independent of each other and they created obligations on the other side. 10. In applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case we will have to examine the nature of the transaction entered into between the parties. According to the agreement Ex. 30 the Defendant was the manufacturer of sugar and the Plaintiff was appointed its agent to push the sales on its behalf and was entitled to a be supplied by the manufacturer to third parties and on the basis of the goods sold the plaintiff was to earn 60 paise on every Rs. 100 on the price of the goods sold. 100 on the price of the goods sold. The amount of Rs. 2 lacs deposited by the Plaintiff with the Defendant was not an independent amount devoid of any connection with the transaction of agency because in the agreement Ex. A-30 itself we find a mention that this amount was got deposited from the Plaintiff by way of security and for ensuring due compliance of the terms of the agreement by the agent. Since the money was to lie in deposit with the Defendant, the Plaintiff was allowed an interest of 4½ % on this amount. This deposit of Rs. 2 lacs was not an independent transaction with the Defendant but was, in fact a part and parcel or rather in compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It had therefore, no existence as an independent obligation between the parties apart from the agreement itself. 11. From the account books, the copies of which have been filed on record as Exs.17 to 31, it is apparent that there were transactions between the parties mainly in respect of the sale of the sugar, its commission and interest on the security amount. 12. Shri G.N. Verma, Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that there were about 25 such transactions entered in the account books which would go to show that there were obligations created between the parties which were quite independent of the transaction of sale of sugar and the commission thereon. He has drawn our attention to an item of Rs. 1813.20 dated 20th January, 1962, which is alleged to have been advanced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the purpose of a typewriter machine. From the account book, we find that this sum was paid by cheque on 26th February, 1962, and it appears that somebody from the Defendant's company wanted to purchase a typewriter and due to mutual regard 4,806-34 dated 14th May, 1962, which appear to have been paid by the Plaintiff for the Defendants to the Sarabhai Chemicals and the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. These items also appear to have been paid by means of a bank-draft on 24th May, 1962. In any case, if we closely examine these transactions what we find is that these transactions are obligations created against the Defendant rather than an obligation created against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendant. Ltd. These items also appear to have been paid by means of a bank-draft on 24th May, 1962. In any case, if we closely examine these transactions what we find is that these transactions are obligations created against the Defendant rather than an obligation created against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendant. If a typewriter machine was purchased and was paid for by the Plaintiff, it created an obligation on the Defendant to pay this amount. Similarly, for the payment made for the drugs as well as for the purchase of iron by the Defendant and paid for by the Plaintiff although, initially this created an obligation on the Defendant rather than the obligation being created against the Plaintiff to pay. 13. There are some other payments which are said to have been made by the Plaintiff but there is nothing in the evidence to show as to why and in what manner and for what purpose these amounts were paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The entries in the account books are silent about it and the oral evidence of the Plaintiff is much more mute than the entries themselves. In fact the entries made in the account books have not been duly and properly corroborated by means of the oral evidence and the Learned Counsel for the Appellant was merely relying on whatever was written in the account books. As already stated earlier mere entries in the account books did not spell out as to why and in what connection the payments were made and, therefore, it is very difficult for this Court to come to a conclusion that these amounts were paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as an independent transaction creating the obligation against the Plaintiff to pay. On an overall evaluation of the account books which we did very transactions entered in the account books by the Plaintiff go to show that they were merely one sided transactions. 14. Apart from this, even if for the sake of argument it may be assumed that some of these transactions do create an independent obligation on the Plaintiff, then the question arises-would it be a case of mutual obligation within the meaning of a mutual, open and current account? 14. Apart from this, even if for the sake of argument it may be assumed that some of these transactions do create an independent obligation on the Plaintiff, then the question arises-would it be a case of mutual obligation within the meaning of a mutual, open and current account? For the creation of an open, mutual and current account there must be an intention between the parties, either express or implied, which may be deducible from the course of dealings, to have mutual dealings creating reciprocal obligations independent of each other with the intention that these transactions are to continue and are not to be closed until the parties decide to close their account. Such an intention must be evident from the time of commencement of such dealings. One or two stray transactions, which normally persons engaged in business have to carry out for the sake of good friendly business relations with the other party, cannot be termed as reciprocal or mutual obligations but are merely isolated transactions and do not fall within the compass of their normal business dealings. If the officer of the Defendant's company was in difficulty while purchasing the type-writer having no money at that time and he obtained the help from the Plaintiff in paying the price at that time, which was, however, soon made good by payment through cheque, such a transaction cannot be said to be a transaction creating an obligation. 15. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant in spite of our best efforts to elicit from him was not able to cite any case law where it may have been held that any express or implied agreement to start or continue a mutual, current and open account was not necessary. There may be a case in which there may not be an agreement as such but such an agreement may be discernible from the course of conduct between the parties and then it will give rise to an implied contract to have mutual dealing. 16. Apart from the above, nothing has been shown to us which may amount to creation of a mutual, open and current account. The facts which have been stated, even if accepted at their face value will not amount to a mutual account having been agreed upon between the parties, creating an independent obligation, even though impliedly, on the other. 16. Apart from the above, nothing has been shown to us which may amount to creation of a mutual, open and current account. The facts which have been stated, even if accepted at their face value will not amount to a mutual account having been agreed upon between the parties, creating an independent obligation, even though impliedly, on the other. After giving our earnest thought to the facts of the case and the legal position, as discussed in the earlier part of judgment, we do not find that the Plaintiff has been successful in proving that there did exist a mutual, current and open account between the parties and as such the suit was clearly barred by time. 17. The decision given by the trial court on the question of limitation appears to be fully justified on the evidence on record and, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 18. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.