1. The maintainability of this suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts of running partnership concern has been challenged by defendants on more than one grounds which have given rise to the following preliminary issues being framed on 25-8-1977 :

(1) Whether the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is not properly fixed ? If so, what is the proper value ? O.P.D.

(2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the principles of res-judicate ? O.P.D.

(3) Whether no valid leave to bring the present suit was obtained from the Court and as such the suit is not maintainable ? O.P.D.

Learned counsel for the parties did not lead any evidence on these preliminary issues and only addressed their arguments.

ISSUE NO : 1 :

2. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction for the relief of rendition of accounts at Rs. 100/-, However, so far as the relief of dissolution of partnership is concerned, the plaintiff has valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 55,000/- and paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 12.50. Mr. J.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the defendants argued that this course is not permissible and that the plaintiff having valued the suit, for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction for the relief of rendition of account at Rs. 100/-, could not fix a different jurisdictional value for the relief of dissolution of the partnership firm. In the alternative, it is argued that in case the plaintiff wishes to fix the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 55,000/- he is required to pay the court fee on that amount, as otherwise the suit is not maintainable in this court.

3. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the plaintiff has on the other hand submitted that there being no specific provision for valuing a suit for dissolution of a firm in the Court Fee Act, the suit has to be valued only under Article 17 of the Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. According to Mr. Thakur, the plaintiff is required to pay advalorum Court Fee under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act when the suit is a simple suit for accounts and it is open to the plaintiff to fix any value for that purpose. It is submitted that since the plaintiff has fixed the value for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fee at Rs. 100/- in so far as the relief of rendition of account is concerned, the plaintiff has discharged his obligation under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act read with Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act. It is further argued that since the relief of dissolution of a partnership firm is a distinct relief which is incapable of any definite valuation, the plaintiff is at liberty to fix any jurisdictional value for the relief of dissolution and pay the fixed court fee at Rs. 12.50 for seeking a declaration of dissolution of the firm.

4. Admittedly, S. 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act speaks only of a suit for accounts. The Section reads thus :

7(iv) ¦¦¦¦¦¦.

(f) for accounts--

according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

5. A plain reading of the section shows that it deals with suits for accounts. Under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value for the purposes of Court Fee and the jurisdiction has to be the same. It is the omission of the word dissolution from section 7(iv)(f) (supra) which has created some misunderstanding about the true scope of this provision but a closer scrutiny would show that the misunderstanding is illusory, A suit for accounts, it is well settled, can be filed not only in respect of a running concern but also in respect of a dissolved firm. A suit for account has, as such, always been treated to include within its ambit a suit for dissolution and for the purposes of payment of court fee, the suit is to be valued under section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fee Act. The earliest case which is directly on the point came up before the Allahabad High Court, when the precise question involved was whethe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document