The facts are sufficiently set forth in the judgment of the High Court (1), which is as follows:—
The only question raised in this case is that the decisions of the Courts below are erroneous, because the plaintiff's suit should have been held barred by limitation. We think that ??? 90 of the second Schedule of Act IX of 1871 is applicable ??? this case. In this case the plaintiff, as principal, has sued the defendant, who was his agent, to render accounts of certain ??? of money paid to him from time to time for the expenses of ??? suits, ???. The limitation, therefore, must run from the date ??? which the account is demanded and refused. In this case ??? lower Appellate Court found that the account being ??? the defendant at first promised to render it during the ??? 1879, that is in Assin or Kartick 1279, but he never fulfilled ??? promise, and therefore virtually refused to reader the account at that time. The present suit is brought on the 15th of June 1875, or Assar 1282, and it is accordingly in time. We, therefore, ??? this objection, and dismiss the special appeal with costs.