The valuation chosen by the plaintiff in a suit must not be arbitrary or manifestly inadequate. The court has the authority to direct the plaintiff to value the suit in accordance with the claim made in the replication and to pay the deficit court fee.

Revision arises from the finding on issues 19 and 20 in O.S.137/1983 before Sub Judge, Kollam. That is a suit for a declaration that M/s Sujit Ganesh Nayak and Co., a partnership firm of which plaintiff and defendant were the partners, stood dissolved or is deemed to have been dissolved with effect from 21st December 1982 or from 14th March 1981 as claimed by the defendant and for rendition of accounts. A permanent injunction was also sought seeking to restrain defendant from appropriating or disposing of plaint A schedule immovable properties and the movables in the B schedule as well as for a permanent injunction to restrain defendant from interlaying with the rights of the plaintiff from entering the head office of the firm situated in item No.l of the plaint A schedule and inspecting books of accounts and movables kept therein. Plaintiff claimed 7/16 shares in the assets of the firm. For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the share of the plaintiff was valued at Rs.10,050 under S.36 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and an amount of Rs.985 was paid as court fee. The relief of injunction was valued at Rs. 150 under S.27(c) and court fee of Rs. 15 was paid. Defendant filed written statement resisting the claim of plaintiff. In paragraph 31 of the replication filed by the plaintiff claim was made for an amount of Rs.28 lakhs. An additional written statement was filed by the defendant contending that the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient.

2. On the basis of the additional pleadings, issues 19 and 20 were raised as to whether the suit has been properly valued and whether the court fee paid is proper. Both sides were heard on these issues and the court below by order dated 13th September 1990 found that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and that proper court fee has not been paid. Holding that plaintiff is bound to value the suit as per the details given by him in paragraph 31 of his replication, the court directed plaintiff to take steps within one week to correct the valuation accordingly and to pay deficit court fee on making such correction. That finding is under challenge in this revision filed by plaintiff.

3. In the original plaint the suit is valued at Rs.10,050 under S.36 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short the act). Claim for an amount of Rs.28 lakhs is made in the replication and it is alleged that plaintiff is entitled to realise this amount from defendant at the time of settlement of accounts towards loss and damages sustained by plaintiff from 14th March 1981. It is on the basis of this pleading that the court below observed that the suit has been deliberately undervalued and directed plaintiff to take steps to correct the valuation. The main contention advanced by learned counsel for revision petitioner is that the suit being one for rendition of accounts of a dissolved partnership, court fee need be paid on the value of the plaintiffs share in the partnership as estimated by the plaintiff. That estimate had been made in the original plaint according to the counsel and the claim made in the replication has to be ascertained only at the stage of final decree for which court fee need be paid only at that stage. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for respondent that the amount shown in the replication represents the estimate made by the plaintiff and court fee is liable to be paid on that amount.

4. The Additional issues arise from the additional pleading of plain tiff which is said to be a replication. What is a replication? The Civil Procedure Code nowhere mentions about a replication or a rejoinder. Rule 9 of Order 8 only enables a party to present a pleading subsequent to the written statement. What is permitted to be filed under the rule is only a pleading which as defined in Order 6 Rule 1 is a plaint or a written statement. Even for presenting a subsequent pleading the leave of the court is