: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2009 Usman Raza Fatmi .. Applicant V/s. Faaiz Anwar Qureshi .. Respondent Mr. S.R. Gupta for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. This Civil Revision Application has been moved by the applicant-plaintiff against the order passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, on 4th May, 2009 in S.C. Suit No.2556 of 2007, directing that the plaint be returned to the applicant-plaintiff for presenting the same before the appropriate Court. A suit has been filed by the applicant-plaintiff claiming that there was a Memorandum of Understanding between him and the respondent under which he agreed to finance a feature film by paying Rs.15 lacs to the respondent. The applicant- plaintiff claimed that after release of the feature : 2 : film, he was entitled to 15% of the share in the profit earned by the respondent-defendant under the Memorandum of Understanding. Since the amount was not paid to the applicant-plaintiff in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12th July, 2002, the applicant-plaintiff has filed Suit for declaration that the Memorandum of Understanding was binding and that the applicant- plaintiff was entitled to 15% of the share in the profit earned by the respondent-defendant on release of the feature film. Besides that, the applicant-plaintiff has also sought the appointment of a Commissioner for Accounts and other reliefs. 2. The learned Advocate for the applicant- plaintiff relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company & Ors. vs. Mrs. Vimla Pannalal, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1636, to contend that the trial Court has erred in returning the plaint. The Supreme Court has held that a Suit for accounts is filed with the fond hope that on accounting a substantial amount would be payable to the : 3 : plaintiff. The relief cannot be valued on such hope, surmise or conjecture. The Supreme Court has held that in a Suit for accounts it is almost impossible for the plaintiff to value the relief correctly. 3. In my opinion, this judgment would not apply in the facts and circumstances in the present case since the applicant-plaintiff has pleaded that the profits earned by the respondent-defendant on release of the feature film are huge. The applicant-plaintiff has not stated anywhere that 15% of this amount would be less than Rs.50,000/- which is the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. In these circumstances, in my view, the trial Court has committed no error in returning the plaint. 4. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. .......