Appeal dismissed: Suit time-barred, defendant not agent, plaintiff failed to prove claims. No costs due to parties' relationship.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's findings that the suit was barred by the law of limitation, the defendant was not an agent, and the plaintiff failed to substantiate its claims. The court did not award costs, considering the long-standing relationship between the parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Relationship between the Parties (Principal-Agent vs. Buyer-Seller)
2. Law of Limitation
3. Admissibility of Additional Evidence
4. Liability of Defendants and Calculation of Amount Due

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Relationship between the Parties (Principal-Agent vs. Buyer-Seller)
The primary issue was whether the relationship between the parties was that of a principal and agent as per Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act. The plaintiff argued that the agreement (Exhibit 112) established this relationship. However, upon examining the terms of the agreement, the court found that the defendant was appointed as a distributor, not an agent. The court emphasized that the defendant had to purchase diesel engines at a price fixed by the plaintiff and resell them at a higher price, retaining the difference as profit. The court concluded that the defendant did not have the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff or represent the plaintiff in dealings with third parties, thus failing the test under Section 182. The court cited various rulings, including Abdulla Ahmed v. Animendra Kissen Mitter and Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (Madras) Ltd. v. Shaik M. A. Majid and Co., to support its conclusion that the defendant was a buyer and not an agent.

2. Law of Limitation
The plaintiff claimed that the suit was within the limitation period due to a payment made on 17-3-1969, which was allegedly acknowledged by the defendant's agent. However, the court found that Vechatbhai Dhirubhai, who signed the acknowledgment (Exhibit 111), was neither a partner nor an agent of the defendant. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's reliance on documents marked 33/1 and 33/2, which were not properly proved and did not constitute valid acknowledgments. Consequently, the court held that the majority of the transactions were time-barred, except for three small items dated 20-3-1969, 17-8-1969, and 28-10-1969.

3. Admissibility of Additional Evidence
The plaintiff sought to introduce additional evidence through Civil Application No. 2291 of 1975, claiming oversight in not producing certain documents earlier. The court referred to Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC, which restricts the admission of additional evidence unless specific conditions are met. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the evidence was not available earlier despite due diligence. Additionally, the court concluded that the proposed evidence would not materially affect the outcome of the case. Therefore, the application for additional evidence was dismissed.

4. Liability of Defendants and Calculation of Amount Due
The plaintiff claimed a total amount of Rs. 69,476.89, comprising Rs. 51,486.89 as the principal amount and Rs. 17,990 as interest at 12%. The court noted that the plaintiff only produced bills and a ledger, but did not produce the cash books and sale registers, which were crucial for substantiating the claims. The court drew an adverse inference from the absence of these documents. The defendants argued that they were entitled to commissions for direct sales made by the plaintiff in their territory, which the plaintiff failed to account for. The court found that the plaintiff did not establish its claim and that the suit was not maintainable for accounts against the defendants. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's findings that the suit was barred by the law of limitation, the defendant was not an agent, and the plaintiff failed to substantiate its claims. The court did not award costs, considering the long-standing relationship between the parties.

---