CIVIL REVISION NO.1291 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 09 , 2008 Hari Kishan Goel .....Petitioner VERSUS M/s Joonix India and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. In a suit filed by the petitioner for dissolution of the respondent firm and for rendition of accounts, defendant-firm filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the same was premature, false, misconceived, vexatious and without any cause of action, besides pleading that ad-valorem court fee would be payable. The petitioner, however, pleaded that it is a case of CIVIL REVISION NO.1291 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: rendition of accounts and permanent injunction and prayer made by the defendant-respondents for rejection of the plaint would not come within the purview of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. According to the petitioner, an appropriate court fee has already been fixed on the plaint and so the application filed by the defendants deserve to be dismissed. After noticing that suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is for rendition of account, the Court has directed that an appropriate court fee on Rs.19 lacs be affixed by the petitioner-plaintiff. A period of two months is thereafter granted to the petitioner to comply with the orders, failing which the injunction order passed by the Court would stand automatically vacated. Mr.A.P.Bhandari submits that in a case of rendition of account, it is not possible to correctly evaluate the suit and as such, the court in such cases has to accept the valuation done by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fee. Mr.Sunil Chadha, on the other hand, would dispute this proposition and would support the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Both the counsel have placed reliance on same judgment in support of their respective contentions, in the case of M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and others Vs. Mrs.Vimla Pannalal, AIR 1988 SC 1636. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has observed that ordinarily, it is not possible for the Court at a preliminary stage to determine the value of the relief in a suit for accounts simpliciter. If the Court is itself unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation that has been made by him. Indeed, in a suit for CIVIL REVISION NO.1291 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: accounts it is also difficult for the Court to come to a finding even as to the approximate correct valuation of the relief. In such a case, the Court has no other alternative than to accept plaintiff's valuation tentatively. Mr.Chadha, however, would seek support from the observation made in the same judgment to the effect that when there is an objective, standard of valuation and valuation is put on the relief, ignoring such objective standard, it might be demonstratively arbitrary and unreasonable valuation and the court would be entitled to interfere in the matter. The varying stand of the respective parties, thus, would emerge from the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company (supra). Mr.Chadha has further referred to the case of Abdul Hamid Shamai Vs. Abdul Majid and others, AIR 1988 SC 1150, where it is viewed that the plaintiff can not act arbitrarily in the matter and where he chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure, it is tentamounting to not exercising his right in this regard. It is further observed that in such a case it is the duty of the court to reject such valuation. In this context, the counsel has also referred to the case of Surinder Kaur and Ors. Vs. S.Rajdev Singh & Ors. 128 (2006) Delhi Law Times 460 to say that even if the definite amount is to be determined by the Court after the accounts are settled, still the petitioner can be asked to make good deficiency in the payment of court fee in relation to relief, which he has claimed. I have considered the rival contentions made before me by the counsel. In M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that it is not CIVIL REVISION NO.1291 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: possible for the Court at preliminary stage to determine the value of the relief in a suit for accounts simpliciter and that court can not require the plaintiff to correct the valuation, which he has made. The observations relied upon by the respondents' counsel apparently are not attracted in the present case as the suit is for rendition of account and it has not been pointed out in any manner before me that there has been any violation of objective standards of valuation, which would show any arbitrary and unreasonable valuation requiring the court to interfere in valuation done by the petitioner. In fact, the ratio of law that will emerge from the case of Surinder Kaur (supra) would rather stand in support of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is clearly held in this case that when a suit for rendition of accounts is filed and it is not practically probable for the plaintiff to exactly value suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, he can avail the benefit of payment of fixed court fee with an undertaking to make up the deficiency in payment of court fee once accounts are settled and definite amount determined by the court which the plaintiff is entitled to receive. Mr.Chadha apparently has relied upon the part of observations in this judgment and would require the petitioner to give an undertaking to make up the court fee on the basis of amount determined by the Court. The valuation done by the plaintiff where the amount is not certain normally can not be interfered by the Court and this tentative valuation is generally accepted. It is always open for the Court to direct the plaintiff to make up the deficiency, when the amount etc. is finally determined. This view would find support from the case of Subhash Chander Goel Vs. Harvind Sagar,, AIR 2003 CIVIL REVISION NO.1291 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: Punjab and Haryana 248, where it is said that correct valuation and relief in case of claim for damages can not be assessed and as such, valuation given by a plaintiff is to be accepted tentatively. In the case of Hem Raj Vs. Harchet Singh and others, 1993 Civil Court Cases 48 (P&H), the valuation offered by the plaintiff was accepted because even the court would not be able to access the value and issue direction to the plaintiff to do the needful. Reference can also be made to the case of S.Rm.Ar.S.Sp.Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S.Rm. Ar. Rm.Ramanathan, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 245 where it is held that question of court fees must be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint and the court's decision can not be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision in the civil suit on merits. It is further held that the value for the court fee and the value for the jurisdiction may no doubt will be the same but value for court fee stated by the plaintiff is of primary importance and it is on the basis of this value that the value of jurisdiction must be determined but not vice-versa. In the present case, there is no specific amount for the purpose of valuation in the plaint in view of the law laid down above. The valuation of the suit as done by the plaintiff-petitioner is required to be accepted. Ofcourse, the plaintiff can always be asked to make up the court fee on the basis of the amount which would be finally determined by the Court. Accordingly, the order requiring the petitioner to fix the ad- valorem court fee can not be sustained. The same is set-aside. However, it would be open for the Court to ask the petitioner to fix the court fee on the amount, if any, found due after final determination CIVIL REVISION NO.1291 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: and awarded by the court ultimately. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. April 09 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE