IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4549 of 2006 Date of Decision : September 22, 2008 Kabaj Singh ....Petitioner Versus M/s Subhash Chand Pawan Kumar .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate Ms. R.P. Dudeja, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for rendition of accounts has been filed by the petitioner, pleading therein that he is a farmer and had been selling his entire crop through the respondent, a Commission Agent. He had taken some advances from the respondent-firm on different dates to meet his household and agricultural expenses. He also sold the entire crop worth Rs. 8,52,000/- through the respondent. However, the respondent neither rendered the accounts to him nor paid him the sale proceeds of his crop. In para 12 of the suit it was mentioned that the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and Court fee could not be ascertained by him at that stage as the same could be determined only by the Court after taking entire evidence of both the parties. He, however, undertook to pay the ad valorem Court fee on the value to be so determined by the Court. However, at that stage, he tentatively assessed the value of the Civil Revision No. 4549 of 2006 -2- suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction as Rs. 200/- and affixed Court fee stamp as Rs. 25/- on the plaint. Upon appearance in the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for calling upon the petitioner to correct the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, besides requiring him to make up the deficiency in the Court fee, failing which plaint be rejected. It was averred therein that as the petitioner was claiming to have sold the crop worth Rs. 8,52,000/- through the respondent, he was required to affix the necessary Court fee on the said amount. The petitioner filed his reply to the said application of the respondent. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 7.8.2006, required the petitioner to pay the Court fee tentatively on the amount of Rs. 8,52,000/- on or before one month from the date of the order, besides deficiency of any other amount. He was further directed to make the deficiency of the Court fee on the sum ascertained finally at the time of passing of the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in a suit for rendition of accounts, any amount stated to be due to a plaintiff is a mere approximate estimate and, therefore, it cannot be made basis for affixation of Court fee. Though, the petitioner has mentioned that he sold his crop worth Rs. 8,52,000/- through the respondent but also Civil Revision No. 4549 of 2006 -3- mentioned in the suit that he had also received advances to meet his household and agricultural expenses. Therefore, the respondent would not be finally required to pay him the aforementioned amount of Rs. 8,52,000/-. Whatever amount has to be finally received by the petitioner in the eventuality of his suit for rendition of accounts being decreed, he would pay the Court fee, accordingly. In support of this preposition, learned counsel has placed reliance on M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and others v. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal , 1988(2) PLR 288, Kuldip v. Babit Nayar, 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 673, Anand Saroop v. Arun Kumar, 2002(1) Civil and Rent Judicial Reports 477 and Civil Revision No. 5135 of 2007 (Hoshiar Singh Vs. Niranjan Singh) decided by this Court on 4.2.2008. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as the petitioner has already calculated the relief due, he is required to affix ad valorem Court fee thereon. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly directed him to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount of Rs. 8,52,000/-. Reliance has been placed upon Ranjit Kaur and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2006(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3002. Rule 4(i) of the Punjab High Court Rules framed under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act envisages different valuations for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. The value of a suit for accounts requires the affixation of Court fee as per Court Fees Act, 1870 for which the valuation of the relief has to be made by the plaintiff Civil Revision No. 4549 of 2006 -4- under Section 7 (iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act. While interpreting Order VII Rule 11 (b) C.P.C., Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Company’s case (supra) observed that where there is an objective standard of valuation, a plaintiff would not be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation ignoring the objective standards or materials. The relevant observations read as follows :- “12. ……It is true that the Court did not consider whether the plaintiff had been given an absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on his relief under the provision of Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. But the difficulty that would be felt by the Court in exercising its power under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure is that if it is unable to determine the correct value of the relief, it cannot direct the plaintiff to correct the valuation. Order VII Rule 11 (b) contemplates correct valuation and not approximate correct valuation and such correct valuation of the relief has to be determined by the Court. If the Court cannot determine the correct valuation of the relief claimed, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and, consequently, Order VII Rule 11 (b) will not be applicable. 13 to 15. xxx xxx xxx 16. Thus, where there are objective standards of valuation or in other words, the plaintiff or the Court can reasonably value the relief correctly on certain definite and positive materials, the plaintiff will not be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation dehors such objective standards or materials. Civil Revision No. 4549 of 2006 -5- 17. to 19. xxx xxx xxx 20. ……..Further it has been observed that it is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively under valued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. In that case the plaintiff had valued the lease hold interest on the basis of the rent and such valuation was held to be reasonable and not demonstratively arbitrary. 21. to 22. xxx xxx xxx 23. ……It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that in view of such a statement in the plaint, the respondent should have valued the relief for rendition of accounts at Rs. 25 lakhs. We are unable to accept the contention. The statement does not in our opinion constitute any objective standard of valuation or a positive material from which it can be said with any amount of certainty that the valuation of the relief for accounts should be at the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. The respondent was not required to make such a statement in the plaint. It is the wishful thinking of the respondent that on account being taken, she would be entitled to such a huge amount. The respondent has not given in the plaint any material in support of the estimate of Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 30 lakhs to her share. As has been stated already, this is no material at all on which any reliance can be placed for the purpose of valuation of the relief. In the connection we may Civil Revision No. 4549 of 2006 -6- refer to a decision of the Lahore High Court in Atma Ram Charan Das v. Bisheshar Nath. In that case also, the question was whether the plaintiff had correctly valued the relief for the rendition of accounts. In the plaint, the plaintiff stated that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was due to him from the defendants, but he valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and Court fee at Rs. 500/- tentatively. It was held that the plaintiff could not prejudiced or damnified merely because he added to the plaint a computation which was unnecessary for him to give.” The aforementioned judgment was followed by this Court in Kuldip’s case, Hoshiar Singh’s case and Anand Saroop’s case (supra), and it was held by this Court that if the plaintiffs had affixed Court fee or valued the suit in an arbitrary manner, the Court had the power to direct them to correct the jurisdiction value of the suit and to pay the proper Court fee. However, at that stage the Court was to be guided by the allegations and averments made in the plaint. Plaintiffs had not alleged that after the rendition of accounts a particular amount would be due to them. Under these circumstances, they were only supposed to pay a nominal Court fee of Rs. 20/-, which had been paid. The Court fee would be charged from them on the passing of final decree, if any, in their favour. In Ranjit Kaur’s case (supra),reliance upon which has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent, the plaintiffs had filed Civil Revision No. 4549 of 2006 -7- a suit for damages on account of death due to electrocution. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 20 lacs as damages. It was under these circumstances that the plaintiffs were required to affix proper Court fee on the amount of Rs. 20 lacs as claimed by them. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Keeping in view the aforementioned discussion, it has to be held that the amount referred to by the petitioner in the plaint was an approximate estimate of the amount that he may receive in case his suit for rendition of accounts is decreed in his favour. It is a wishful estimate of his claim. There being no objective standard of valuation on the basis of which the Court could arrive at a definite conclusion under Order VII Rule 11 (b) C.P.C., the learned trial Court was in error to direct the petitioner to affix ad valorem Court fee. Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court on 7.8.2006 requiring the petitioner to pay Court fee tentatively on the amount of Rs. 8,52,000/- is set aside. Once the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner, the trial Court shall call upon him to pay such Court fee as may be due in accordance with the claim decreed in his favour. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 22, 2008 JUDGE satish