Judgment

DUTT, J. :- Special leave is granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the Division Bench affirmed the judgment of a learned single Judge of that Court rejecting the contention of the appellants that the suit was undervalued by the plaintiff-respondent and, accordingly, the plaint should be rejected under clause (b) of Rule 11of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The respondent who is the plaintiff, has filed a suit against the appellants, inter alia, for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. The suit has been valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 25 lakhs and at Rs. 500/- for the purpose of court-fee.

4. The appellants filed an application wherein a preliminary objection was raised as to the valuation of the suit. It was contended by them that the relief sought for in the suit had been grossly undervalued and the Court should reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned single Judge of the High Court overruled the said preliminary objection and held that the suit was not undervalued. On appeal by the appellants, a Division Bench of the High Court took the same view as that of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench placed reliance upon and followed a Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Smt. Sheila Devi v. Shri Kishan Lal Kalra, ILR (1974) 2 Delhi 491 where it has been observed, inter alia, that paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act gives a 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. The Division Bench felt itself bound by the said Full Bench decision and, accordingly, it dismissed the appeal of the appellants. Hence this appeal.

5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that in regard to suits for accounts, the Punjab High Court has framed rules under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act fixing court-fee and jurisdictional value of 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 Courts Act, 1918 as valued by the plaintiff in the plaint subject to determination by the court at any stage of the trial."

6. It is not disputed that the above rules framed by the Punjab High Court under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act are applicable to the Union Terriroty of Delhi . It is apparent from Rule 4 extracted above that valuation for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is not the same. Indeed, in the instant case, the respondent has valued the suit at Rs. 25 lakhs for the purpose of jurisdiction. That valuation has not been challenged by the appellants either in the High Court or in this Court. The only challenge that has been made by the appellants is the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee.

7. So far as suits coming under S. 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act are concerned, the Legislature has left the question of valuation of the relief sought in the plaint or memorandum of appeal to the plaintiff. The reason is obvious. The suits which are mentioned under S. 7(iv) are of such nature that it is difficult to lay down any standard of valuation. Indeed, the Legislature has not laid down any standard of valuation in the Court-fees Act. Under S. 9 of