JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 13.12.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking additional plea for the rendition of accounts. 2. The petitioner earlier filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the respondents has made demand of additional price through show cause notice, which is illegal, arbitrary, null and void. It was pleaded by the petitioner that he could not specifically pin-point and ask for the rendition of accounts in the main suit which is very germane and relevant for the adjudication of the controversy. Through the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC he made a prayer that he may be allowed to add the relief of rendition of accounts. 3. Notice of the application was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations made by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the claim of the petitioner for rendition of accounts is neither maintainable nor tenable. Even the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner is time barred as the impugned notice is dated 11.10.1993. The respondents pleaded that the said application has been moved in order to delay the proceedings and the petitioner is at liberty to inspect the record and he can point out the mistake, if any, as held by the High Court in number of cases. She never asked the respondents to submit the account and, therefore, she cannot seek the relief of rendition of accounts. 4. Both the parties addressed arguments before the trial Court and for the following reasons as given in para No. 6 of the impugned order, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed :- "6. After carefully going through the authority of law relied upon by the learned Counsel for the defendants, and after considering the rival contentions in the delight of observations of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is amply clear that the plaintiff has no right to seek any rendition of accounts from the defendants and he is at liberty to inspect the accounts in the office of the defendants and as such proposed amendment was legally barred. More so, the amendment has bee sought when the case was fixed for arguments which would certainly further delay the disposal of the case which pertains to the year 1993. Therefore, I find no merit in the application of the plaintiff and the same is hereby dismissed with costs." 5. I have heard Mr. J.K. Goel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.L. Suneja, learned Counsel for the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others, 2001(2) SCC 472 and submits that the learned trial Court has committed patent illegality in declining the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. He submits that since the plaintiff/petitioner is an allottee, therefore, she has every right to ask for the rendition of accounts from the defendants/respondents. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondents relies upon Pronoy Kumar Sanyal v. Beni Madhav Sanyal, 2000(2) PLJ 384. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and in my opinion the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was misconceived and the plaintiff/petitioner has no right to file an application making the prayer for rendition of accounts. Section 213 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, lays down that an agent is bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand. Meaning thereby that a suit for rendition of accounts is maintainable by principal against the agent. By no stretch of imagination, prima facie it can be held that defendants/respondents is the agent of the plaintiff/petitioner. The case of the plaintiff/petitioner was simplicitor that the demand notice issued by the defendants/respondents is illegal. If the plaintiff/petitioner has any grouse against the defendants/respondents, he can always show by leading evidence in the suit that this demand notice is bad and cannot be acted upon. Resultantly, this revision is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.