In a suit for accounts, the plaintiff has the right to place any valuation that he likes on the relief he seeks, and the court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act against the decision of learned Single Judge dated 24th September, 1985.

( 2 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, the appellant (defendant) had claimed two reliefs in his application, I. A. No. 5279185 The first relief was that Issue No. I, as to whether the suit of tiie plaintiff is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if not, to what effect, be treated as a preliminary issue; and, secondly, that the plaint be rejected as the plaintiff has delibrately and intentionally under-valued the relief for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction

( 3 ) IN the plaint the suit is valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs 25,00,0001- and for purposes of court fee at Rs. 500. 00.

( 4 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, the counsel for the defendant referred to various paragraphs of the plaint with a view to show that the plaintiffs have arbitrarily valued the suit for purposes of court fee and he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in then case of A. . KA. . CT. V. CT. Meenakshisundrar Vs. A. KA. CT. V. CT. Venkatachalam Chettiar AIR 1979 SC 989 (1) wherein the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 along with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act came up for consideration. Learned Single Judge, however, followed the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheila Devi and others Vs. Sh. Kishan Lal Kalra and others, ILR 1974 Delhi (II) 491 (2 ). Learned Single Judge took the view that the Supreme Court in its judgment was construing the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court- fees and Suits Valuation Act, the provisions of which are not similar to the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-fees Act. Learned Single Judge was also of the view that the plaintiff was not in a position to estimate correctly the amount which she may be entitled to, after the rendition of accounts and the valuation fixed for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction cannot be said to be unreasonable taking into account the circumstances of the case. in view of these findings, learned Single Judge held that, "suit cannot be said to have been. under valued" and in this view of the matter, the application of the appellant was dismissed.

( 5 ) BEFORE us also, Mr. S. K. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheila Devi and others (supra) requires reconsideration and he insisted in submitting that the provisions with which the Supreme Court was dealing are similar to the one in Delhi and, therefore, the decision of the Full Bench of Delhi and, therefore, the decision of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court require reconsideration.

( 6 ) THE Full Bench decision of this Court had noiced the consistent views of High Courts of Lahore, Bombay, Madras, Mysore, Rangoon, Hyderabad and the Judicial Commissioners Court of Peshwar. In the Lahore High Court the consistent view has been taken right from 1913 including the Full Benches decision in the cases of Barm and other v. Lachman and others. 111 p. m. 1913, page 4 (Full Bench ). Rattigan, Beadon and Agnew, JJJ. , (3) Mt. Zeb-ul-nisa and others V. CHoudhury Din Mohd. and others, AIR 1941 Lahore 47 (4 ). Emperor V. Ralla Ram. AIR 1946 Lahore (5) Ghulam quadir V. Bulagi Mal and Sons, AIR 1949 Lahore 1 (5) Karma Ilahi V. Muhammad Bashir, AIR 1949 Lahore 116 (7) and Visliwa Nath and another V. Smt. Sita Bai Anand. AIR 1952 Punjab 335 (8) besides numerous other judgements. Ths Bombay High Court s view was identical with the view of the Lahore High Court in the three decisions noticed in the Full Bench decision, namely. Burjor Pesponji Satna V. Mariman Minoo Todiwalla. AIR 1953 Bombay 382 (9), Chaglact. and Dixit J. . Raidhar Buwa V. Umakant Bumrao, AIR 1958 Bombay 310 (10), J. R. Mudholkpr. . I. and Chhottalal Kalidas V. Laxmdas Mavaram, AIR 1959 Bombay 517 (11 ). Shah and Gohale The