A plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and whimsically value a suit for the purpose of jurisdiction to divest the jurisdiction of a lower court and invest a higher court with jurisdiction.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF has filed this suit for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright and passing off. The relief is valued at Rs. 200. 00 for the purpose of court free and jurisdiction and court fee of the amount of Rs. 20. 00 has been affixed. However, for the relief of rendition of account of profits, it is valued at Rs. 200. 00 for court fee and Rs. 5 lakh for purpose of jurisdiction. Paragraph 23 (c) of plaintiff is : -

(C) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants, it is valued at Rs. 200. 00 for purposes of Court fee and thje requisite amount of Court fee has been affixed. This relief is valued at Rs. 5,50,00. 00 for the purpose of jurisdiction, as the plaintiff estimates that such an amount shall be found due to the plaintiff on accounts being rendered.

( 2 ) AT the outset this Court look objection that the Court fee paid on the plaint was arbitrary, whimsical and without basis as nothing has been averred in the whole plaint regarding the profits illegally earned by the defendant or approximation of the sale conducted by the defendants. Not even a whisper in the plaint has been made regarding damages being suffered by the plaintiff except a bald averment in para 23 (C) of the plaint that for the purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiff valued the relief for rendition of account at Rs. 5,50,000. 00.

( 3 ). Ajay Sahni, learned counsel for the plaintiff has addressed lengthly arguments mat it is the right of the plaintiff to value the relief for the purpose of jurisdiction under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 2 of me Court Fee Act, 1870 and Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 read along with Rule 3 and 4 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and on the basis of the aforesaid enactment Mr. Sahni has contended mat in view of the amendment in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and in view of Rules 3 and 4 of the said amendment, the plaintiff has got the right to fix any value for suits for rendition of accounts. [in para 4, Rule 4 is reproduced].

( 4 ) MR. Salmi has contended mat if me Court ultimately comes to an opinion from the material on record or evidence adduced that the suit is undervalued or over-valued, the Court can pass appropriate order. But at the lime of institution of the suit, law enjoins plaintiff the right to fix its own valuation for the relief of rendition of account and for valuation purposes of jurisdiction, in case of former, the suit has been valued at Rs. 200. 00 and the later at Rs. 5,50,00. 00. He has REFERRED TO the whole catena of cases i. e. M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. Vs. Vimal Pannalai, AIR 1988 SC 1636, Brooke Bond Vs. Balaji Tea 1993 PTC 40, M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. Vs. Vimla Panna Lal; AIR 1986 Delhi 439, M/s Eastern Kodak Company Vs. M/s M. R. Electronics, AIR 1995 PTC 146 and Automatic Electronic Ltd. Vs. R. K. Dhawan, 57 (1995) DLT 49 as well as M/s P. M. Diesels Ltd. Vs. M/s. Patel Field Marshal Ind:, FAO (OS) 270/95 decided on 13. 3. 1998.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid authorities, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff could put his own value for the purposes of jurisdiction and grievance that value for purpose of jurisdiction is higher would make no practical difference since the value for purpose of Court fee could be different in view of the Rules framed under Section 0 of the Suits Valuation Act.

( 6 ) THERE is no controversy regarding fixing of Court fee by the plaintiff on the relief of rendition of account, choice is left to the plaintiff to exercise that right in a proper manner. This view has been consistently taken by the Full Bench of this court in Suit. Sheila Devi Vs. Shri Kishan Lal Kaira and Ore. ; ILR 1974 (2) Delhi 491 as well as Division Bench of this court in M/s Fenner India Ltd. Vs. M/s Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ; FAO (OS) 204 and CM 2685/ 1995 decided on 9. 4. 1997. The authority REFERRED TO by learned counsel for the pl