A suit for the recovery of a definite sum of money must be valued at the same amount for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction.

ORDER :- This Revision Application is filed by Anant Balkrishna Naik, the defendant in suit No 5/73 in the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Margao. The Revision Application was directed against the order of the lower Court dated March 13, 1975, dismissing the application of the defendant for an order of the Court directing the plaintiff to pay court-fee on Rs. 58,094.26. Govind Datta Gaundalkar filed this suit against Naik and prayed inter alia:- (1) that the defendant be ordered and directed to pay such sums which in view of the pleadings, the Honourable Court deems appropriate with interest from date of suit to that of actual payment; (2) In the alternative, that it be declared that the partnership was dissolved on January 5, 1970; (3) that accounts be taken.

2. The defendant raised the Preliminary objection that the suit should be valued for the purpose of court-fee and stamp at Rs. 58,094.26 and not at Rs. 200/-, as it was valued by the plaintiff.

3. At paragraph 9 of the plaint the plaintiff states :-

"The plaintiff says that as the defendant failed and neglected to pay plaintiffs dues and as the plaintiff was incurring heavy losses by reason of the money being locked in the shed and machinery, the plaintiff, in disregard of said agreement made "inter alia" a proposal to the defendant to buy his land. The defendant did not accept the offer. Thereafter, the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, being Reg. Civil Suit No. 107/71, wherein he falsely alleged that this plaintiff was a trespasser in respect of the said shed and prayed for his eviction therefrom. The defendant further obtained a temporary injunction to prevent this plaintiff from using the shed. In the circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to recover and the defendant is liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 31,895.44 P. and Rs. 15,947-72 P. aggregating Rs. 47,843-16 P. and interest on the said sum of Rs. 31,895-44 P. at the rate of 15% per annum from October 10, 1970. The plaintiff says that there is a sum of Rs. 58,094.26 due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as per the particulars of claim annexed hereto".

In view of the averments in paragraph 9 it is evident that the present suit is for the recovery of a definite sum of money, namely, Rs. 58,094.26 which the plaintiff states was due by the defendant to the plaintiff as per the particulars annexed to the plaint. The suit does not cease to be a suit for recovery of a certain sum merely because the plaintiff also prays for accounts of a partnership which he alleges to exist between him and the defendant. It may be that the present suit was filed for the recovery of the definite and ascertained sum of Rs. 58,094.26 as the existence of the partnership was not admittedly by the defendant.

4. It is argued by Shri Joshi that a revision application does not lie against an order of the Court dismissing an objection regarding court-fee. Shri Joshi relies on Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299. In that case the High Court of Madras held that the provisions of the Madras Court-fees Act do not arm the defendant with a weapon of technicality to obstruct the progress o the suit by approaching the High Court for revision against an order determining court-fee. However, in that case the question of court-fee did not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. If the suit is valued at Rs. 200/- as was done by the plaintiff the Junior Civil Court will acquire jurisdiction to hear it and the jurisdiction of this Court to hear any appeal that may be filed will be taken away. It is true that the plaintiff had tried to circumvent this difficulty by giving a different valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction. But this is certainly a suit which under the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act has to be valued at the same amount for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction. In Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, AIR 1973 SC