Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 9.12.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh, on an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. as amended.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of damages, mentioning therein that the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee was valued at Rupees one lac and court fee of Rs. 3320/- (Rupees three thousand three hundred and twenty only) was paid. In the prayer clause it was prayed that. the suit of the plaintiff be decreed with costs for a sum of Rupees one crore against each of defendants Nos. 1 to 8 severally. Interest @ 18% p.a. was also claimed on the decretal amount.

3. In the written statement filed, an objection was taken that, the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The issue was framed in this regard.

4. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 thereafter moved an application for rejection of plaint for want of requisite court fee. The learned trial Court was pleased to pass the impugned order. The operative part of which reads as under :-

"5. After hearing the Id. Counsel for both the parties and going through the case file carefully, I am of the considered opinion that the pronouncement relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff is not applicable to the present facts of the case for a simple reasons that in a suit for renditions of accounts the exact money which is going to be recovered cannot be ascertained but plaintiff in the present case is seeking damages in the categorical terms. He has claimed rupees one crore each from each of the defendants so he knows the exact amount which he wants to claim and there is scope for the court to go into the valuation as plaintiff has himself categorically explained the amount which he want to recover. Under such circumstances there is no ambiguity in the mind of this court that the plaintiff is bound to affix ad valorem court fee on Rs. 8.00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores) and he is directed to affix the same on Eight Crores of Rupees within 30 days. The pronouncement of our Honble High Court is fully applicable to the present facts of the case. To come up on 9.1.2007 for filing court fee."

5. Mr. B.R. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on blehalf of the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the plea that, in the written statement objection regarding non-payment of proper court fee was raised and issue was framed, therefore, there was no occasion for the defendant/respondents now to file a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, especially when the Reader of the Court found the suit to be properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.

6. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner had undertaken to pay the court fee on the decretal amount when the final decree is passed, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In support of the contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Commercial A viation & Travel Company and others v. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal, 1988(2) PLR 288, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under :-

"Held further, that our attention has been drawn to paragraph 33 of the plaint where it has been stated by the plaintiff that on rendition of accounts, the plaintiff estimates that approximately a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to 30 lakhs would become due to her share. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that in view of such a statement in the plaint, the respondent should have valued the relief for rendition of accounts at Rs. 25 lakhs. We are unable to accept the contention. The statement does not, in ouropinion, constitute any objective standard of v