BANARSI LAL Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impagned the order of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak, dated 4. 3. 1989 directing the respondent to pay Court fee on the value of his share which the petitioner himself estimated at Rs. 40,000/ -.

(2.) IN short, the facts giving rise to the controversy with respect to payment to court fee are that the plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts and assessed his due share at Rs. 40,000/-but for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, the value was assessed at Rs. 2,000/- though a relief amounting to Rs. 40,000/- at least was claimed by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE trial Court directed the plaintiff petitioner to affix Court fee on the value of Rs. 40,000/in terms of Section 7 (f) of Punjab Court Fees of Act, and in view of the law laid down in A. KA. CT V. CT Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. A. KA. Op V. CT Venkatachalam Chettiar, A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 989. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since it is a suit for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts and since no value can be ascertained to which the plaintiff shall be found entitled in the eventulity of the suit being decreed the suit has been correctly valued for purposes of Court fees. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as it his been categorically observed in Meenakshisundaram's case (supra) that in suit for accounts, the plaintiff is required to state the amount at which he values the relief sought. Though it is not possible for the plaintiff to estimate correctly the amount to which he is entitled to, yet it is necessary that the amount at which he values the relief sought be a reasonable estimate, it was further observed that if the Court, on the materials available, is satisfied that the suit has been undervalued by the plaintiff, the plaint is ligble to be rejected The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and deliberately unervalue the relief.