In a suit for rendition of accounts, the valuation of the appeal for the purpose of jurisdiction and computation of court-fee is the same and is determined by the amount at which the relief is sought in the memorandum of appeal. S. 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act is applicable to such suits and court-fee is payable according to the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. The order of the Taxing Officer in such cases is final and cannot be reopened.

( 1 ) THE respondent instituted M. S. No. 129 of 1961 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack against the appellant claiming for a decree for Rs. 10,723. 63. The basis of the claim was that the respondent had advanced loans to the appellant on different dates and the aforesaid amount still remained unpaid. The appellant denied the claim altogether, but on the other hand, preferred a counter claim praying for a decree on mutual accounts in his favour. Whereas, the respondent paid an ad valorem court-fee on the amount claimed against the appellant, the latter valued the counter-claim tentatively at Rs. 100/- and paid court-fee thereon.

( 2 ) BY judgment dt. 9-3-1964 a preliminary decree was passed on the following terms :-"that the suit is decreed on contest with costs against the defendant and pleader's fee at 6 per cent. P. I. and F. I. at 6 per cent P. A. At the same time the cross claim of the defendant for accounts to be rendered by the plaintiffs to account for the defendant's goods lying with the plaintiffs' custody is also preliminarily decreed, the details of which should be worked out in the final decree stage. If the parties do not comply a commissioner will be appointed on defendant's depositing Rs. 50/- tentatively for taking the accounts in that respect as discussed in the judgment and the costs of the cross claim will abide the result of the final decree proceeding. It is made clear that the decree of one party is not dependant on the decree of the other. "the respondent preferred F. A. No. 40 of 1964 in this Court which was disposed of on 5-8-1970 by allowing the appeal and passing the following order :-"in the result, we allow the appeal, set aside that part of the judgment and decree of the Court below directing the plaintiffs to render accounts and order that the cross claim made by the defendant in his additional written statement be dismissed with costs throughout. "in Civil Appeal No. 471 of 1971 preferred by the appellant the Supreme Court restored the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court.

( 3 ) IN the final decree proceeding a Pleader Commissioner was appointed for taking of the accounts. On consideration of his report the trial Court on 14-10-76 passed a final decree to the following effect :-". . . . . . . IT is ordered that after deducting Rs. 11552. 37 p. from Rs. 16,759/- the defendant is allowed Rs. 5206. 63 p. only to get from the plaintiff with profit at 10% on this amount as recommended by the Pleader Commissioner and the excess amount claimed by the defendant for the rise of prices is rejected and with this modification the commissioner's report is recorded. The plaintiff to pay to the defendant the sum of Rs. 5,34. 15 p. which was recommended by the Pleader Commissioner. "being aggrieved by rejection of the excess amount claimed by him, the appellant preferred this First Appeal. He valued the appeal at Rs. 84,533. 57 for the purpose of jurisdiction and put the valuation of Rs. 100/- for the purpose of court-fee and paid court-fee thereon. The Stamp Reporter of the Court raised objection as to the manner in which the memorandum of appeal was valued and a grossly low amount was paid as court-fee. In order to meet his objection, the appellant under his own signature filed a memo on 31-3-1977 to the following effect :-"that as per defect No. 4 the valuation instead of valued at Rs. 84,533. 57 p. it will be Rs. 534. 15 being the value as per preliminary decree. As this appeal arose out of a suit for rendition of accounts as such the appeal is valued at Rs. 100/- which is the value of relief for the purpose of Court-fee. The appeal was preferred in the year 1964 as the First Appeal No. 40/1964 by the respondent out of the same matter and same parties, which was carried up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the appellant out of which the present first appeal arises. The first appeal of 1964 was similarly valued as of the present this appeal. The petitioner-appellant has removed all other