The main legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of relief for rendition of accounts should be based on objective standards, and if there are no objective standards of valuation, the plaintiff's valuation has to be accepted.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prays for setting aside order Dated 22.7.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ludhiana, dismissing the application of the defendant petitioner in which prayer as made that suit of the plaintiff-respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") be rejected on account of non-payment of court fee.

2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed Civil Suit No. 27 on 14,1,2003 seeking rendition of account of the dissolved firm M/s Triveni Processor, B-XXXII-736/16, Bahadurke Road, Dying Complex, Ludhiana and also sought permanent injunction restraining defendant-petitioner from carrying on a similar business in the firm name or from using , any of the property of the firm for his own benefit until the affairs of the firm have been completely wound up. Another relief prayed was for restraining the defendant-petitioner from alienating or disposing of the assets of the firm, in any manner whatsoever.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-petitioner filed an application with the averment that plaintiff-respondent herself has assessed the amount due to be not less than 50 lacs in rendition of amount and no court fee for the assessed amount has been affixed. It was pleaded that on account of the non-payment of court fee, the plaint was liable to be rejected and the suit could not proceed. The Civil Judge dismissed the application by observing as under:-

"After hearing their respective submissions and perusing the pleadings it is clear that plaintiff in her Plaint alleged in para No. 16 that suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is assessed Rs. 195/- for declaration and Rs. 200/- for dissolution and rendition of account and Rs. 130/- for permanent injunction, on which court fee of Rs. 53/- was paid. Plaintiff further alleged that it is expected that an amount of more than Rs. 50 lacs may be found due on rendition of account against the Respondent and Plaintiff shall pay amount of court tee, when finally due to the plaintiff is determined by the Court. From these averments it is clear that it is almost impossible by Plaintiff to value the relief correctly. Present suit is for rendition of account and right of plaintiff has to be determined after conclusion of evidence of both the parties. In view of these averments law cited by learned counsel for plaintiff in (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 288, Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and Ors. v. Vimla Panna Lal, is fully applicable to the averments alleged in the Plaint, whereas law cited by learned counsel for Respondent in 1993 I.S.J. 437, Smt. Bachni Devi v. Tej Ram and Ors., is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Moreover, Respondent have also taken these objections in the written statement and as such plaintiff/shall be liable to pay court be before of that decree, if any account which was found due after determination to final decision by the Court. Accordingly application moved by Defendant/ Applicant shall stands dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits on the main case."

4. Mr. Vikas Sagar, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that once the plaintiff-respondent herself has evaluated the suit then there is no escape from affixing the court fee on the value assessed and she cannot be held entitled to delay payment of court fee till after the judgment and decree is delivered. According to the learned counsel the right of the defendant-petitioner would be materially prejudiced by non-payment of court fee and under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code the plaint is liable to be rejected. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment, of this Court in the case Bachni Devi v. Tej Ram, 1993 I.S.J. 437.

5. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has, on the other hand, argued that in accordance with the provisions of Section 7-IV