POCHALAL RANCHHOD Vs. UMEDRAM KALIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs, who carry on the business of a commission-agency, sued the three defendants to recover the sum of Rs. 3,370-14-0 as balance due on a current account between the parties, The plaintiffs valued the claim at this sum of Ks. 8,370-14-0 and paid Court-fee thereon. The defendants, among their objections, pleaded that the suit was time- barred. The Subordinate Judge decided against this contention and passed a preliminary decree for accounts against defendants Nos. 1 and 2, He held that defendant No. 3 was not liable. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appealed to the District Court of Ahmedabad, and among the grounds of appeal were (1) that necessary parties had not been joined and the lower Court ought to have dismissed the suit on that account, and (2) that the lower Court erred in holding that the suit would be in time, if it was brought within three years of the last item in the accounts. Before the Assistant Judge a contention was raised that the claim in appeal had not been properly valued.

(2.) The defendants valued the claim in appeal as a declaratory relief at Rs. 130 and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 10 only. The Assistant Judge held that the suit was one falling under Clause (i) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, viz., a suit for money, and was not one for accounts falling under Clause (iv)(f) of the section. He also relied on the decision in Srinivasaeharlu V/s. Perindevamma (1915) I.L.R. Mad. 725 that, in a suit coming under Clause (iv), Section 7, of the Court-fees Act, when the plaintiff has valued the relief prayed for and obtained a decree, in that instance a preliminary decree for an account, and the defendant appeals against the whole decree, he is bound by the valuation in the plaint, Accordingly, he directed that the appellants should, within eight days, make up the deficit Court-fee on that basis. Though time was extended, this was not paid, and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed, The defendants have come to us in second appeal.

(3.) The main question is whether this is a "suit for money" falling under Clause (i) or a "suit for accounts" falling under Clause (iv)(f) of Section 7. A subsidiary point is whether, supposing it is a suit for accounts, appellants are bound by the valuation of the claim made by the plaintiff , when he filed the suit, In ray opinion, the suit as brought being one for a definite sum of money, as balance due on a current account, is a suit for money falling under Clause (i) of h. 7, and not for a suit for accounts falling under Clause (iv)(f) of n. 7.