I have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Lower Appellate Court has misread the testimony of the plaintiff to the effect that he has settled his accounts with defendants No.1 to 3 till the year 1999 because in fact plaintiff was referring to said settlement of accounts with his own brother and not with defendants No.1 to 3. Relevant part of statement of plaintiff as read by Learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant may lead to two interpretations. However, it has to be seen whether there was any duty cast on defendants No.1 to 3 to render accounts to the plaintiff. The answer to this question has to be in the negative. There was no fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 making defendants No.1 to 3 liable to render the accounts to the plaintiff. Merely because plaintiff was selling his crop through defendants No.1 to 3 would not make defendants No.1 to 3 liable to render any accounts to the plaintiff. On the contrary Form-B of the crop sold is given by the commission agent to the farmer who sells the crop. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to rendition of accounts from defendants No.1 to 3. In addition to the aforesaid it has come in evidence that kind of produce and its rate and weight sold by the farmer is entered in the record of Market Committee. Consequently, the plaintiff could have relevant details from the Market Committee as well. In addition to it the plaintiff himself has the said details by way of Form-B given by the commission agent defendant No.1 at the time of sale of produce. There is another significant circumstance for non-suiting the plaintiff. The plaintiff has simply sought rendition of accounts but has not sought recovery of amount if any due from the defendants No.1 to 3 to the plaintiff. Without seeking recovery of the due amount suit for mere rendition of accounts would not be maintainable. It is also worth mentioning that plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that he knew approximately the amount of crops sold by him. For this added reason as well his suit for rendition of accounts could not have been decreed particularly when there is no duty cast on defendants No.1 to 3 to render accounts to the plaintiff. Submit