The rules framed by the Lahore High Court under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, which provided for separate valuations for court fees and jurisdiction in certain cases, were applicable to the Delhi High Court by virtue of Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

( 1 ) THE defendant (M/s. JEC Cabmac (P) Ltd.) by this application filed under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil P. C. contends that the plaintiff having fixed the value of the relief claimed by it in the suit at Rs. 200. 00, the plaint is liable to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented to the court having jurisdiction to entertain a claim of Rupees 200. 00 as the value for the purpose of jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act has to be the same. It is further contended that it is not permissible to state different values of the suit claims for different purposes and that no plaintiff has a right to choose a court "to which he is not entitled under law". Besides, it is alleged that the value arrived at by the plaintiff is not in consonance with Order VII, Rule 2 which requires the plaintiff to state approximately the amount or value sued for after the exercise of reasonable diligence.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff traversing the contentions of the defendant submits that it had correctly and fully complied with the provisions of Order VII Rule 2; that it had correctly valued the suit and that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit. The plaintiff further submits that the application is misconceived and that the defendant ought to have filed written statement.

( 3 ) IN order to determine the controversy between the parties as to whether the suit is triable by this Court or not, it would be relevant to note the brief facts of the case. The plaintiff s case is that defendant No. 2 Shri K. Jayaraman before floating the defendant- company was acting as general manager of a public limited company known as Promain Limited, New Delhi. The said Company was manufacturing machinery for wire and cable industry. The plaintiff-company had been acting as sole selling agents of M/s. Promain Limited. The said sole selling agency of the plaintiff Company was concluded with effect from April, 1973. The plaintiff alleges that on the service of defendant No. 2 coming to an end with M/s. Promain Limited in or about Aug. 1973, he set up a firm in the name and style of Jayar Engineers and Consultants. Subsequently, the said defendant along with his wife, relatives and friends floated defendant No. 1 company and commenced the business of manufacturing machinery for the wire and cable industries. According to the plaintiff while acting as sole selling agents of M/s. Promain Ltd. it had earned for itself a reputation in the wire and cable industry in the country and even after the conclusion of its sole selling agency of M/s. Promain Limited, it continued to receive enquiries for equipment required by the wire and cable industry from various factories all over India and abroad. The case of the plaintiff is that when the defendants commenced manufacturing machinery for wire and cable industry they requested it to assist them and take over the work of pushing the sale of the equipments manufactured by the defendants who agreed to pay a commission of 5 per cent on the value of the orders through it or through its introductory efforts.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff submits that it rendered services to the defendants as desired and that according to its estimation the defendant succeeded in selling machinery and equipment of an amount of about rupees forty lakhs through its efforts. The plaintiff accordingly submits that it became entitled to a commission of 5 per cent on the order value of the machinery and equipments thus sold by the defendants.

( 5 ) THE grievance of the plaintiff is that despite a large sum of money due to it on account of commission, on its repeated demands for rendering accounts so that commission due to it may be ascertained and paid, defendants sent an undated statement of account full of inaccuracies which the plaintiff received on or about 5th September, 1976. The plaintiff submits that by its letter dated 17th September, 1976 it pointed out the inaccuracies in the statement of accounts