( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit for (i) rendition of accounts; (ii) declaration; and (iii) injunction. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement dated 27. 5. 1994, called "agreement for Consignment" for sale of medicinal goods of the defendant on the terms and conditions agreed therein initially for one year which was twice renewed and last agreement dated 7. 4. 1997 was for one year. It contemplated supply of medicinal goods by the defendant to be sold on commission basis by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was liable to make payments of those goods to the defendant and on the sales effected the plaintiff was to get 2% commission on the net invoice price. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff had furnished a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 40 lakhs entitling the defendant to claim from the said Bank Guarantee the amounts that may be due from the plaintiff towards the supply. Though this agreement was for one year however the supplies had been made upto 14. 11. 1997 only. The defendant demanded payment of their dues amounting to Rs. 45. 51 lakhs vide letter dated 15. 4. 1998. This demand is disputed as according to the plaintiff only a sum of Rs. 31. 74 lakhs is due and plaintiff had informed the defendant that the amount will be paid in May/june, 1998 when funds will be available with them. The defendant has invoked the Bank Guarantee in full on 22. 4. 1998. The plaintiff has alleged that this invocation of the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 40 lakhs is illegal, unwarranted and un-enforceable.

( 2 ) IN this suit the plaintiff has claimed the following reliefs :-

(A)PASS a preliminary decree for the rendition of accounts against the defendant in respect of the goods supplied by the defendant and after adjusting the commission, rate difference etc. a final decree may kindly be passed; (b)pass a decree of declaration that the demand of the defendant to the extent of Rs. 45. 51 lacs vide letter dated 15. 4. 1998 is illegal, unwarranted, void and can not be enforced under the law; (c)pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining it from invoking or encashing the bank guarantee No. 43/274 dated 12. 8. 97 executed by Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda, H-11, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 001.

( 3 ) FOR the purposes of these reliefs the suit for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction has been valued as under :-

COURT Fee paid a)For the relief of injunction, valued at Rs. 5 lakhs Rs. 7224. 00 b)For relief of rendition of accounts valued at Rs. 200. 00 Rs. 20. 00 c)For declaration valued at Rs. 200. 00 Rs. 20. 00

( 4 ) THE suit did not appear to be valued properly and I put the learned counsel for the plaintiff to notice to satisfy on the following points :-

(1) Whether the suit for declaration as framed is maintainable ? (2) Whether the suit as framed is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for rendition of accounts?

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has simply stated that the suit as framed is properly valued and properly instituted but without supporting with the relevant provision of law or the case law and he insisted that the matter may be taken up.

( 6 ) TO determine whether the suit as framed is maintainable and proper court fee has been paid only the averments made in the plaint have to be looked into. The plaintiff seeks declaration and also injunction that they are not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 45. 51 lakhs demanded by the defendant and for the relief of declaration the suit is valued at Rs. 200. 00 and only a court of Rs. 20. 00 has been paid and for the relief of injunction it is valued at Rs. 5 lakhs without disclosing under which provision and on what basis the suit has been so valued.

( 7 ) THE relevant provisions of the Court Fees Act Act are :-

(1) Clause (iii) of Article 17 of Schedule II which reads as under :- (iii)To obtain a declaratory Court fee decree where no con