JUDGMENT
G. Bikshapathy, J.
1. These revision are at the instance of the defendant and as directed against the Orders passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in IA No. 104 of 2003 in OS No. 237 of 2002 and IA No. 509 of 2002 in OS No.237 of 2002.
2. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce for accounts. He had estimated the amount due from the defendant at Rs. 47,04,613/-and valued the suit at Rs. 2 lakhs tentatively. The defendant filed a petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the suit as the plaintiff did not pay the Court fee on Rs. 47,04,613/-. The said application was heard by the learned Judge and it was dismissed by an Order dated 4.8.2003. The said Order is assailed in the present civil revision petition by the defendant.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the Order passed by the lower Court is wholly illegal and the lower Court failed to properly appreciate the ingredients for assessing the estimated value of the relief in a suit for accounts. He further submits that when the plaintiff has clearly stated in the plaint that he is entitled for a sum of Rs. 47,04,613/- by giving the details of cheques, which are liable to be credited to his account and after deducting a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs, which is due to the bank, he became entitled for the balance as aforesaid, in such a situation, the plaintiff was required to pay Court fee and he cannot value the suit whimsically and pay the Court fee on Rs. 2 lakhs. It is further contention of the learned Counsel that the lower Court has not properly appreciated the decision reported in M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company v. Mrs. Vimla Pannalal, . Therefore, he submits that the lower Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to value the suit in case of suit for accounts. He submits that in such types of suits, it will rather be impracticable for the plaintiff to value the suit accurately with precision and therefore, under those circumstances, the plaintiff has to pay the Court fee based on the value assessed on approximation and not on actuals and therefore, the lower Court correctly dismissed the application basing on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M/s Commercial Aviation’s case (supra).
5. The issue that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the Order of the Court below is sustainable?
6. While the defendant solely relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Hameed Shamai v. Abdul Majid, , the plaintiff relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M/s Commercial Aviation’s, case (supra). Therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above said cases has to be considered.
7. In Abdul Hameed’s case (supra) the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the partnership deed was illegal and void and for passing a decree for dissolution of the partnership firm and for accounts. The valuation of the suit was put at Rs. 150/-being the sum of Rs. 50/-/for declaration and Rs. 50/- for rendition of accounts and another sum of Rs. 50/- for profit to the share of the plaintiff arising out of the business.
8. The defendant has taken the objection that the valuation given by the plaintiff was grossly undervalued. Therefore, the Trial Court has taken up the issues relating to the correct valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The preliminary issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendants challenged the order in civil revision petition unsuccessfully and hence he approached the Supreme Court by special leave.
9. It was the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant that when the relief was claimed to a sum of Rs. l,26,796.72ps besides another sum of Rs. 80,000/- as the share in profits, it was inappropriate on the part of the plaintiff to tentatively value the suit at Rs. 50/- only.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent was that the suit was governed for the purpose of Court fee by Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act and the plaintiff had the absolute right to put 6n the plaint any value he wishes to and the Court has no jurisdiction to examine the matter. In effect it was the contention that it was the sweet-will of the plaintiff to choose any figure he likes and thus decide finally the Court, which shall have the final jurisdiction to the subject-matter of litigation. This contention was raised relying on the decision in Smt. Tara Devi v. Sri. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, , and Meenakshisundaram Chettair v. Venkatachalam Chettair, , and reference was also made to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Krishnaji Hari v. Gopal Narayan, AIR 1932 Bom. 111.
11. The said contention was repelled by the Supreme Court and observed that the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. The Supreme Court also observed that the two cited decisions referred to above by Mr. Chaterjee cannot assist him. It is observed as under:
“It is true that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after taking all the accounts and he may, therefore, tentatively value the suit, but he is not permitted to choose an unreasonable and arbitrary figure for that purpose.”
12. In Tara Devi case the Supreme Court observed as:
“…The plaintiff however, has not been given the absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on such relief and where the plaintiff manifestly and deliberately underestimates the relief the Court is entitled to examine the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiff and to revise the same if it is patently arbitrary or unreasonable…”
13. The Supreme Court referring to the opinions of the High Courts in various States, finally observed as under:
“It is true that in a suit for accounts the correct amount payable by one party to the accounts can be ascertained only when the accounts are examined and it is not possible to give an accurate valuation of the claim at the inception of the suit. The plaintiff is, therefore, allowed to give his own tentative valuation. Ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness of the valuation chosen, but the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this matter. If a plaintiff chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure it is tantamount to not exercising his right in this regard. In such a case it is not only open to the Court but it is a duty to reject such a valuation. The cases of some of the High Courts which have taken different views must be held to be incorrectly decided.”
14. Therefore, from the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court it is clear that the plaintiff has no unfettered right to value the suit based on choice and that the figure should not be either whimsical or ridiculously low and that the valuation put by the plaintiff should not be unreasonable and arbitrary, though the valuation need not be with precision. The said decision again came to be considered by Supreme Court in M/s Commercial Aviation’s case (supra), which is being heavily relied on by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff.
15. In the said case, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant inter alia for dissolution of partnership firm and for accounts. The suit was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 25,00,000/-and Rs. 500/- for the purpose of Court fees. On a preliminary objection raised by the defendant with regard to the valuation of the suit the matter was heard by the High Court. The learned Single Judge overruled the preliminary objection and held that the suit was not under valued.
16. The Division Bench while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Sheila Devi v. Shri Kishan Lal Kalra, ILR 1974 2 Delhi 491, wherein it was held that:
“…paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act gives right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the clauses of that paragraph to place any value that he likes on the relief he seeks, subject, however, to any rule made under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiffs valuation.”
17. The decision of the Division Bench was carried to the Supreme Court by way of special leave. The Supreme Court observed that Punjab High Court has framed rules under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act fixing Court-fee and jurisdictional value in a suit for accounts. Rule 4 of the Rules framed by the Punjab High Court provides as follows:
“4(i). Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint seeks to recover the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff on taking unsettled account between him and defendant;
(ii) Suits of either of the kinds described in Order XX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
Value for the purpose of Court-fee as determined by the Court-fees Act, 1870. Value for the purposes of jurisdiction for the purpose of Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and the Punjab Court Act, 1918 as valued by the plaintiff in the plaint subject to the determination by the Court at any stage of the trial.”
18. Therefore, the valuation for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction is not the same and in fact, the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 25,00,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. That valuation has not been challenged by the defendant either in the High Court or before the Supreme Court. The only challenge that was made by the defendant was with regard to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court-fee.
19. While referring to the Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act and Rule 4 referred to above the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“In a suit for accounts it is almost impossible for the plaintiff to value the relief correctly. So long as the account is not taken, the plaintiff cannot say what amount, if at all, would be found due to him on such accounting. The plaintiff may think that a huge amount would be found due to him, but upon actual accounting it may be found that nothing is due to the plaintiff. A suit for accounts is filed with the fond hope that on accounting a substantial amount would be found due to the plaintiff. But the relief cannot be valued on such hope, surmise or conjecture.’
20. The Supreme Court noticing that there are divergent views and opinions expressed as to whether the plaintiff in a suit for accounts is entitled to put any valuation he likes referred to a five Judge Bench decision in Santhappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, , wherein Gajendragadkar, J. considering the impact of Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act vis-a-vis Order VII, Rule 11(b) Code of Civil Procedure observed as follows:
“But, there may be cases under Section 7(iv) where certain positive objective standard may be available for the purpose of determination of the valuation of the relief. If there be materials or objective standards for the valuation of the relief, and yet the plaintiff ignores the same and puts an arbitrary valuation, the Court, in our opinion, is entitled to interfere under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the Court will be in a position to determine the correct valuation with reference to the objective standards or materials available to it. In Urmilabala Biswas v. Binapani Biswas, AIR 1938 Cal. 161, a suit was instituted for declaration of title of Provident Fund money amounting to a definite sum with a prayer for injunction restraining the defendant from withdrawing the said money. In written statement held that there was no real distinction between the right to recover money and the right to that money itself, and that the relief should have been valued at the Provident Fund amount to which title was claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, it appears that although in that case the suit written statement one under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, there was an objective standard which would enable the plaintiff and the Court too to value the relief correctly and, in such a case, the Court would be competent to direct the plaintiff to value the relief accordingly.”
21. While dealing with Abdul Hameed’s case (supra) the Supreme Court observed that the plaintiff cannot whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for filing the suit most arbitrarily where there are positive materials and objective standards of valuation of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint and that these materials or objective standards will enable the Court to determine the valuation for the purpose of Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
22. In Abdul Hameed’s case (supra) the plaintiff had in categorical terms claimed for Rs. 1,26,796.72ps besides another amount of Rs. 84,000/- as his share in the profit, under those circumstances it was observed that it was a positive indication for valuing the suit and that there was enough material and objective standards available for the plaintiff. Therefore, the Supreme Court observed that even in suits for accounts the valuation of the suit must be based on the materials or objective standards available but in the M/s Commercial Aviation’s case (supra) the Supreme Court observed that there was no such material available and only a bare statement unsupported by any material was made which cannot be relied on for the purpose of valuation of the relief.
23. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid rulings of the Supreme Court that when the plaintiff values a suit without there being any material or objective standards in a suit for accounts normally the valuation put by the plaintiff is required to be accepted. However, even in the absence of definite data and materials or objective standards being available the valuation must be reasonable estimate and not demonstratively arbitrary. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to put whimsical figure and undervalue the suit by giving arbitrary valuation.
24. In the case on hand it is noticed that the plaintiff has given sufficient data and material in the plaint itself with reference to cheques and other particulars. Therefore, this aspect was not considered by the lower Court while dealing with the matter and lower Court has only stated that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Hameed’s case (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand which I find is not correct perception of the case. The matter has to be considered with reference to the averments made in the plaint and if any material or objective standards available for valuation of the relief, in such event plaintiff cannot be allowed to resort to value the suit at abysmally low figure.
25. Thus, I find the lower Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and accordingly the impugned order is set aside. The civil revision petitions are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court for fresh consideration keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above. The lower Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made and findings if any recorded in this order. No costs.