In a suit for rendition of accounts, a Court can pass a final decree for a sum exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction.

R.L. Khurana, J.: —“Whether a Court in a suit for rendition of account can pass a final decree exceeding its pecuniary limit of jurisdiction" is the question involved in the present reference made by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan.

2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present reference may be thus stated. A suit, being Civil Suit No. 31-S/l of 1995/993 was filed by Messrs. Mohan Meakin Limited, Solan against Messrs. Internations Trade, New Delhi and another for rendition of accounts. Such suit was valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 4,00,000 and requisite Court fee was affixed on the plaint. An ex parte preliminary decree for rendition of accounts was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, on 13.8.1999 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

3. On 6.10.1999 an application was made by the plaintiffs praying for appointment of a Local Commissioner to go into the accounts of the parties and to report regarding the amount due, and for passing a final decree in terms of the report of such Local Commissioner. Such application came to be registered as CM.A. No. 212-S/6 of 1999. On 11.5.2000, an ex parte order came to be passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby Shri Dinesh Gautam, Chartered Accountant, Solan, was appointed as Local Commissioner to go into the accounts after due notice to the parties and to report regarding the amount due to the plaintiff.

4. The Local Commissioner, after having gone through the accounts, submitted its report dated 3.7.2000 whereby he found a sum of Rs. 27,51,664.44 paise as due to the plaintiff from the defendants. Since the amount due was far beyond the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, the matter was referred to this Court for opinion on the question posed above.

5. Notice of the reference was issued to the parties. None appeared on behalf of the defendants/respondents. Since the question involved was of importance, in order to have proper assistance in the matter, Shri Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate was requested to act as amicus curiae.

6. Section 7(iv)(f), H.P. Court Fees Act, 1968, provides that the amount of fee payable under the Act for suits for accounts shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

7. Section 11, H.P. Court Fees Act, 1968, which deals with the procedure in suits for mesne profits or account when the amount decreed exceeds amount claimed, provides:— "(1) In Suits for mesne profits or for immovable property and mesne profits, or for an account, if the profits or amount decreed are or is in excess of the profits claimed or the amount at which the plaintiff values the relief sought, the decree shall not be drawn up until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits or amount so decreed shall have been paid to the proper officer. (2) Where the amount of mesne profits is left to be ascertained in the course of the execution of the decree, if the profits so ascertained exceed the profits claimed, the further execution of the decree shall be stayed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits so ascertained is paid and if the additional fee is not paid within such time as the Court shall fix, the suit shall be dismissed."

8. In Hotchand v. Tejumal Mulchand and others, AIR 1925 Sind 324, a preliminary decree for rendition of account was passed by the Joint Subordinate Judge, Sukkar, having limited jurisdiction to try suits not exceeding Rs. 5,000 in value. The Commissioner appointed for taking the accounts found the plaintiff therein to be entitled to Rs. 8,200 including interest. A question arose, whether in a suit for settlement of accounts the subordinate Judge was competen