( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2010 Mahesh s/o Dwarkaprasad Jaiswal, R/o Behind State Talkies, Near Water Tank, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS Rajeshwar s/o Dwarkaprasad Jaiswal, R/o Plot No. 19, N-1, Town Centre, Behind CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Amol Gandhi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th May, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner and the respondent are real brothers interse. Their father used to run a country liquor shop. The dispute has erupted after the death of the father. The country liquor shop is being run by the respondent for the present. ( 2 ) 3. The petitioner filed suit (R.C.S. No. 549/2009) for declaration that he is entitled to half of the share of properties in the business and for rendition of accounts in presenti and in future. The petitioner filed an application for amendment during pendency of the suit. He stated that on consideration of the balancesheet, he prima facie is entitled to recover amount of more than Rs. 15 lacs being his due share. He urged to allow amendment of the plaint showing the valuation of Rs. 15 lacs and was also ready to pay the necessary court fees. The amendment was objected to by the respondent, chiefly on the ground that the amendment was likely to introduce time-barred claim. The respondent further contended that the proposed amendment was without any foundation and there was no substance in the averment that amount of Rs. 15 lacs could be the due share of the petitioner. The learned 7th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) rejected the amendment application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The impugned order shows that the learned Civil Judge held that the amendment application could be considered ( 3 ) because the suit was filed on 1st June, 2002 and that amended provision of Order-VI Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Proviso appended thereunder was not applicable. The amendment application was rejected only on the ground that time-barred claim was likely to be introduced. 6. Question is, “Whether, in fact, any time-barred claim was likely to be introduced by virtue of the proposed amendment and, therefore, the application could be rejected ?” 7. In order to examine this question, it is necessary to see the nature of the claim put forth in the claim clause of the plaint. The suit is essentially for rendition of accounts. In such a suit, the share of the plaintiff is unascertained till the accounts are examined by the Commissioner and the decree is under execution. The plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation in a suit for rendition of accounts. The petitioner may not have put any particular valuation when he filed the suit. His claim is for half share for unascertained sum. Obviously, if he lateron wanted to put up valuation, as per the information received by him, regarding half share which he could claim, there was no reason to say that the amendment was likely to take away his claim ( 4 ) beyond period of limitation. The averments in the plaint purport to show that the petitioner was claiming his due share in the property w.e.f. 09-10-2001 onwards. If at all a part of his claim is found to be barred by limitation, that will have to be considered by the trial Court at the time of final decision in the suit. It was improper for the trial Court to assume that a part of the claim put forth by the petitioner was barred. 8. In “Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majeed” 1988 (2) SCC 575, the Apex Court held that the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after taking all accounts into account. It is observed that the plaintiff is allowed to give his own tentative valuation. It is further observed that if the plaintiff chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure which does not tantamount to exercise of his right, then it is the duty of the Court to reject such valuation. Thus, if the plaintiff seeks rendition of accounts and palpably undervalues the plaint, then it is for the Court to examine the issue regarding valuation of the suit and properly evaluate the claim. Here is the converse case. The petitioner has shown more value than of his share and, therefore, was ready to pay the necessary court fees. Under the circumstances, the rejection of the amendment application ( 5 ) is quite improper, illogical and unsustainable. 9. Taking overall view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The amendment application is allowed and, therefore, the trial Court shall allow the petitioner to effect the amendment as proposed. The question of limitation is kept open. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1510-10