JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant's first appeal against the judgment and final decree dated 23-12-69 of the learnd Additional District Judge (I), Jaipur City, passed in a suit for rendition of accounts. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was originally filed by Milapchand son of Kesarlal as 'Karta' of the Joint Hindu Family, and on his death the respondents herein were brought on record as his legal representatives Kesarlal, was admittedly the 'Mushraf' (Treasury Officer), in 'Kapat Dwara', private treasury, or privy purse of late His Highness Shri Madho singhji of erst-while Jaipur State. After the death of Maharaja Madhosinghji suspicion arose that Kesarlal in his capacity as 'Mushraf' individually as well as jointly with Khawas Balabux the Muntizim of 'Kapat-Dwara' had defaulcated huge sums of money. Consequently, the house and shop of Kesarlal were searched and a number of documents and decrees were seized. A special tribunal consisting of Shri B. J. Dalai and ex-judge of the Allahabad High Court, Pt. Shitla Prasad Bajpei, then judge in the Jaipur State, was appointed to try him and certain other persons on certain criminal charges. As a result of trial, Kesarlal was convicted. Thereafter an enquiry committee appointed to go into the accounts of 'Kapat Dwara' found that Kesarlal was personally responsible to pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,866/15/- to the State. He was also held liable to pay some more amount alongwith Khawas Balabux, the 'Muntizim' of 'Kapat Dwara'. The representation made by Kesarlal against the recovery was turned down. By an order dated December 1, 1926 (Ex. D. 16) it was ordered by the Council of the State that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,02,866/15/- be recovered from Kesarlal. There was a debt due to Kesarlal by Thikana of Galta which was then under the Court of Wards amounting to Rs. 1,00,450/-. In payment of the aforesaid debt, Kesarlal was allowed two villages of Galta Thikana, namely, Nagriwas and Saipura in 'Ijara'. The Revenue Minister of the State recommended that the aforesaid two villages be resumed and instead Rs. 4,100/- be paid to Kesarlal from Samvat 1984 onwards, and the, the same amount without being actually paid to Kesarlal be credited to he State Treasury towards the payment outstanding against him By resolution No. 4 of the Council of the State dated August 16, 1934 (Ex. 4,100/- be paid to Kesarlal from Samvat 1984 onwards, and the, the same amount without being actually paid to Kesarlal be credited to he State Treasury towards the payment outstanding against him By resolution No. 4 of the Council of the State dated August 16, 1934 (Ex. D. 12), the recovery of the instalments of Rs. 4,100/- per annum was ordered to be continued, but it was further ordered that all the decrees which had been assigned by Kesarlal to 'Kapat Dwara' be re-assigned to him and returned with those, which have not been assigned, and he be left free to realise the same. It was further ordered that the moveable and immovable properties of Kesarlal which had already been seized he put to action, and the money so realised be credited towards the principal sum and interest due from Kesarlal. It was also ordered that interest at Rs. 6/- per cent per annum be charged on the outstanding amount against Kesarlal. Milap Chand filed a suit for accounts on March 29, 1949. After the merger of Jaipur with the State of Rajasthan the suit was amended, and the State of Rajasthan was substituted as a defendant. 3. In short, the case of the plaintiffs was that the alleged sum of Rs. 1,02,866.15/- or any other sum was not at all due from them and that in any case the State has recovered a far larger sum of money which was due from Kesarlal in this behalf, and which he put down approximately at rupees 5 lacs, and that Kesarlal and his heirs had many a time asked the State to render the account of the moneys recovered by it on behalf of Kesarlal but without any success. In the suit it was prayed that a decree for rendition of accounts and for payment of such money as may be found due to the plaintiff may be passed. In the suit it was prayed that a decree for rendition of accounts and for payment of such money as may be found due to the plaintiff may be passed. The suit was resisted by the defendant, and the learned trial Court by its judgement dated August 22, 1956 passed a preliminary decree in the following terms: "I, therefore, decree the plaintiff's suit preliminarily for rendition of account against the defendant from 16-2-1923 to the date of the institution of the suit or till the deposit of the last item and direct as under:- (1) That a Commissioner shall be appointed who shall go through the accounts of the outstanding Baqaya of Rs. 1,02,866/15/- against Kesarlal maintained in the Kapat Dwara and tally it with Ex D. 21. In case it is found that any amount deposited either by the debtors of Kesarlal or on account of receipt of proceeds of any immoveable property entered in the Kapat Dwara Bahis is not entered in Ex. D. 21, credit for that amount shall be given to the plaintiffs. Credit will be given only for such entries in Kapat Dwara Bahis, which show that the deposit was made in connection with the Baqaya of Kesarlal or the plaintiffs produce a receipt of any State Official in proof of the fact that the deposit related to the Baqaya outstanding against Kesar Lal. No general deposits in Sawai Amanta without reference to the fact that the deposit related to Baqaya of Kesarlal, shall be taken into account. 2. Five Tolas 10 Mashas of gold ornaments and silver weighing 98 Tolas, 4 Mashas and 4 Rattles, as detailed in Schedule 'C' with the written statement shall be sold and money deposited in Kapat Dwara and credit of the amount will be given to the defendant. 3. Interest at 6% per annum shall be calculated on the amount found due to the Government on 29-3-37 from Kesarlal. The interest shall be simple and shall be calculated yearly on 1st April, 1938 and so on and the deposits of the preceding year shall go towards the reduction of the principal amount outstanding. The interest so arrived at shall be seperately shown. 4. The costs of the suit shall be assessed and appropriate orders in that connection shall be passed at the time of the final decree." 4. The interest so arrived at shall be seperately shown. 4. The costs of the suit shall be assessed and appropriate orders in that connection shall be passed at the time of the final decree." 4. The aforesaid preliminary decree of the trial Court was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court under judgement and decree dated August 20, 1964. This court made certain observations and dismissed the appeal in the light of observations made in the judgment. 5. The trial court appointed Shri Vasudev Mangharam, Advocate as a Commissioner to take the accounts in the case. The said Commissioner gave ample opportunity to the parties to produce any account books, but none appears to have been filed and the Commissioner submitted his report on May 22, 1965 to the trial Court. The Commissioner not only took into consideration the actual deposits of Rs. 4100/ - per year from Galta Thikana or the recoveries therefrom, but also took into consideration the assumed realisation at Rs. 4100/- per annum from Galta Thikana. It held that the total State dues against Kesarlal were Rs. 1,02,966.15/-. Recoveries made from sources other than Galta Thikana upto Samvat 1993 were Rs. 28,595/5x3. Recoveries which could be made from Galta Thikana upto the year 1937 amoun ed to Rs. 41,000/-. Thus, the Commissioner took a total sum of Rs. 69,595/5/3/- as having been recovered from Kesarlal upto the year 1937. The balance which remained due was held to be Rs. 33,271/9/9/-. The Commissioner added interest at 6% per annum from the year 1937, wich amounts is to Rs. 7,880/2/3/-. The total sun due to the State against Kesarlal in the opinion of the Commissioner was Rs. 41,151/12/-. Thereafter, the Commissioner took into consideration the realisation made by the State from sources other the Galta Thikana to the extent of Rs. 12,642/2/9/-. He added to it a sum of Rs. 49,200/- as the sum which could have been realised at Rs. 4100/-- per annum from Galta Thikana upto Samvat 2005. In the opinion of the Commissioner, therefore, the Government had collected a sum of Rs. 20,690/6/9 in excess upto samvat 2005. The Commissioner found a total sum of Rs. 20,721/6/9/- as due to Kesarlal against the State. 6. Objections to the report of the Commissioner were filed on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the State. In the opinion of the Commissioner, therefore, the Government had collected a sum of Rs. 20,690/6/9 in excess upto samvat 2005. The Commissioner found a total sum of Rs. 20,721/6/9/- as due to Kesarlal against the State. 6. Objections to the report of the Commissioner were filed on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the State. Besides raising other objections, the main objection raised on behalf of the State against the report of the Commissioner was that the Commissioner had erred in allowing credit to the plaintiff at a uniform rate of Rs. 4100/- every year by way of assumed realisation from Thikana Galta without considering the fact that whatever amount was actually realised by the Sate was credited in the account. 7. The learned trial Court took the objections of the plaintiff and the State and most of the objections of the plaintiff prevailed with it. The trial Court held that the Commissioner should have allowed the credit of Rs. 4100/- per year to the plaintiff till the amount of Rs. 1,00,450/- which was due to the plaintiff from Thikana Galta was fully realised and Commissioner should not have stopped at the period of the date of the suit. The trial Court, therefore, gave a further credit of Rs. 10,250/- to the plaintiff. The Commissioner had given credit so far as the amount of Rs. 90,200/- the actual realisation as well as assumed realisation at Rs 4,100/- per annum from Galta Thikana is concerned as against Rs. 1,00,450/-. So far as the objection of the State to the effect that credit at uniform rate of Rs. 4,100/- per year should not have been given to the plaintiff and credit of the actual realisation from Galta Thikana ana should have been given, the trial Court observed that the Commissioner has not erred in giving the credit of the aforesaid amount per year, because the Slate alone was to recover this amount and to credit it to the account of the plaintiff. Consequently, the learned trial Court passed a final decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 50,400/53/- P. as principal and Rs. 61,641,50/- P. as interest, total Rs. 1,12,042.03/- P. from the defendant upto 23-12-69. Consequently, the learned trial Court passed a final decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 50,400/53/- P. as principal and Rs. 61,641,50/- P. as interest, total Rs. 1,12,042.03/- P. from the defendant upto 23-12-69. It further ordered and decreed that the gold weighing 5 Tolas and 10 Mashas and silver ornaments weighing 98 Tolas, 4 Mashas and 4 Rattis be handed back by the defendant to the plaintiffs. It also allowed Rs. 6/- percent interest per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 50,400.03/- P. till realisation. Costs were also awarded to the plaintiffs. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 9. The principal contention of Mrs. Kamla Jain, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State is that under the preliminary decree the Commissioner was directed to go through the accounts of the outstanding 'Baqaya' Rs. 1,02,866/15/- against Kesarlal as maintained in Kapat Dwara and tally it with Ex D. 21. Thus, it was a specific directions to the Commissioner as to in what manner the accounts were to be gone through, and if the account books maintained in the Kapat Dwara were not produced before the Commissioner, the Commissioner should have sought orders from the Court and it was not permissible for the Commissioner to have taken into consideration assumed realisation at Rs. 4,100/- per annum from Galta Thikana. In other words, the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that the Commissioner acted beyond jurisdiction in submitting the report by taking into consideration assumed realisations, as aforesaid. The learned Advocate for the respondents on the other hand contends that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of D.B. Civil First Appeal No. 9/57 Manakchand and three others v. The State on August 20,1964 had made some observations as to how the Commissioner was to go through the ace units, and therefore, when the Commissioner took into consideration the assumed realisation, as aforesaid into consideration. he did not act without jurisdiction but was acting within his jurisdiction. he did not act without jurisdiction but was acting within his jurisdiction. This Court in the aforesaid judgement under point No. 3 after dealing with the contention raised before it on behalf of the plaintiffs that in the statement of accounts produced by the defendant State the full recoveries made from Thikana Galta on the account in question have not been shown, and that the learned Senior Civil Judge ignored his aspect of the case and observed, "The short answer to this contention, in our option, is that the learned Judge has not given any finding as to this point and that seems to us to have been so because perhaps this point was not agitated before that court. But whether it was or was not, it would be perfectly open to the plaintiffs to ask the State to render an account in this connection and to claim full credit for the moneys which the State did realise or should have reaslised from it in this behalf year after year right from the date this arrangement was ordered by Ex. 8 dated 21-9-1927. We do not think that it is for us at this stage to go into this matter and, therefore, we leave it to be gone into before the Commissioner." 10. We are of the opinion that the above extracted observations of this Court can hardly help the plaintiffs. This Court upheld the preliminary decree of the trial Court and merely because in the concluding para of its judgement it observed, "that this appeal fails in the light of the observations made above", it cannot be said that the perliminary decree of the trial Court was modified and the accounts were also to be taken of such sums which had not been realised but which ought to have been realised. A perusal of the decree passed by this Court will show that even the above extracted observations made in the concluding para of the judgement do not find mention therein. The decree of this Court is in the following terms: "This appeal coming for hearing on 20-8-64 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. N. Modi and the Hon'ble Justice B.P. Beni in the presence of P. N. Dutta for the appellant and R.A. Gupta for the respondent, it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed. The decree of this Court is in the following terms: "This appeal coming for hearing on 20-8-64 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. N. Modi and the Hon'ble Justice B.P. Beni in the presence of P. N. Dutta for the appellant and R.A. Gupta for the respondent, it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed. The defendant State is allowed half the costs of this appeal." The law is settled that the Court cannot go behind the decree. In the earlier part of our judgement while giving the facts of the case, we have extracted the preliminary decree of the trial Court, which, as already stated earlier, was affirmed by this Court. There was a specific direction in the preliminary decree that a Commissioner shall be appointed and he shall go through the accounts of outstanding Baqayas of Rs. 1,02,866/15/- against Kesarlal maintained in the Kapat Dwara and tally it with Ex. D. 21, Only in case the Commissioner found that any amount deposited either by the debtors of Kesarlal on account of receipt of proceeds of any immovable property entered in "Kapatdwara Bahis" is not entered in Ex. D. 21, then only credit for the amount shall be give" only for such entries in "Kapat Dwara Bahis" which show that the deposit was made in connection with the Baqayas of Kesarlal. In case, on demand the "Kapat Dwara Bahis" were not produced before the Commissioner, the Commissioner could hardly go through the accounts in order to comply with the directions given to him under the preliminary decree. The preliminary decree did not authorise the Commissioner to take into consideration the assumed realisations from Galta Thikana and then to submit his report as to what amount, if any, was due to which of the party against the other. Under Order 20, Rule 16, C.P.C., in any suit 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 is required, before passing its final decree, to pass a preliminary decree directing such accounts to be taken as it thinks fit. The Court must express its directions specifically so as to enable the Commissioner to be appointed to go through the accounts to be in a position to comply with it. The Court must express its directions specifically so as to enable the Commissioner to be appointed to go through the accounts to be in a position to comply with it. The proceedings under a preliminary decree for accounts to obtain a final decree for money, are proceedings in the suit itself and in case the Commissioner feels that the directions of the Court in the preliminary decree are not specific or that further directions of the Court are required in the matter, the Commissioner should apply to the Court seeking its further directions. Under Rule 17 of Order 20, C.P C. even after having given directions for accounts in the decree, the Court has powers and can give special directions by any subsequent order with regard to the mode in which the account is to be taken. So far as the Commissioner is concerned, he must act as per the directions of the Court in the preliminary decree with regard to the mode of taking accounts In the instant case, when under the preliminary decree a specific direction was given to the Commissioner to go through the "Kapat Dwara Bahis" tally the entries therein with Ex D. 21, and give credit of such of the deposits entered in the "Kapatdwara Bahis" which were not entered in Ex. D. 21 the Commissioner could have complied wish the directions in case the 'Kapat Dwara Bahis' were produced before him. When the 'Kapat Dwara Bahis' were not produced before him, he was not and could not have been in a position to go through the accounts. The proper procedure for him would have been to refer the matter for further or special directions of the Court with regard to the mode in which in the absence of 'Kapat Dwara Bahis' the account was to be gone into. The Commissioner has not the powers of the Court and as such in the absence of any directions in the preliminary decree that while going through the accounts, it should also take into consideration the amount which ought to have been realised and has not been realised, it was not within the powers of the Commissioner to have taken into consideration the realisations which ought to have been made by the State and were not made from Galta Thikana. A commission to examine the accounts is issued under Order 26, Rule 11 C.P.C., and the Commissioner has no powers to decide important issues such as in the present case, as to whether the assumed or deemed realisations could also be taken into account, more so when in the preliminary decree there was no such direction to the Commissioner. The learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Nathmal Bhaironbux and Co. and others v. Kashiram and others (AIR 1973 Rajasthan 271), dealing with Order 26, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code held that the Commissioner does not take over the function of the Court. Thus, we are clearly of the opinion that the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in going through the accounts in the manner as he did when he took into consideration the assumed realisations at Rs. 4,100/- from Galta Thikana. When 'Kapat dwara Bahis' were not produced before him, he should have referred the matter to the Court for further directions with regard to the mode in which the accounts should have been gone through. 11. An objection was taken on behalf of the State that the assumed realisations at uniform rate of Rs. 4100/- per annum should not have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner. But, the learned trial Court dismissed the objection and not only accepted the report of the Commissioner but also allowed further credit of Rs. 10,250/- which to us does not appear to be the correct approach. 12. We will, therefore, allow the State appeal, set aside the judgement and final decree dated 23-12-69 of the Additional District Judge (I), Jaipur City. We hold that the Commissioner erred in taking into consideration the assumed realisations at Rs. 4100/- per annum from Galta Thikana. We allow the objection of the State in that respect. We send the case back to the Additional District Judge (1), Jaipur City, with the direction that he will issue specific and special directions to the Commissioner with regard to the mode in which the accounts are to be gone through and will take into consideration the facts that 'Kapat Dwara Bahis' have not been produced. In case the Commissioner Mr. Vasudev Mangharam is not available, the trial Court shall appoint another Commissioner to go through the accounts and give special a d specific directions to him. In case the Commissioner Mr. Vasudev Mangharam is not available, the trial Court shall appoint another Commissioner to go through the accounts and give special a d specific directions to him. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.Order accordingly. *******