( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Om Prakash, plaintiff against the appellate order of the Additional Civile judge, Muzaffarnagar returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif for dissolution of a partnership firm and for accounts on the allegation that the said firm came into existence on 31-10-1953 and carried on its business till 16-11. 1955. It was alleged that the defend-dants dissolved the said firm on 16-11-1955 without his knowledge or consent. In para. 5 of the plaint it was asserted that the plaintiff made a capital investment of Rs. 22,000/- in the partnership business which was going on well till it was dissolved, and that he owed a sum of Rs. 4,383-4-9 only to the partnership in respect of the accounts of an old firm. In para. 7 o the plaint it was pleaded that it was not possible of the plaintiff to ascertain the exact amount due to him from the firm and he was, therefore, valuing the suit at Rs. 1,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and the payment of court-fees.

( 3 ) THE defendants admitted that the plaintiff was" a partner in the firm but denied that he had made any investment. It was also asserted that the firm had suffered losses in its business, and lastly that on the allegations made in the plaint the suit was undervalued and the valuation of Rs. 1,000/-was arbitrary.

( 4 ) THE Munsif came to the conclusion that the suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction and rejected the plaint, on appeal the Civil Judge agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the suit was under-valued and ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff filed the present appeal and it came on for hearing before a learned Single Judge who thought that there was divergence of opinion between the case of Inayat Hussain v. Bashir ahmad; A I R 1932 All 413 and the case of Jumman Khan v. Bhoorey Khan; A I R 1949 All 161 on the question as to whether in a suit for accounts the plaintiff can put an arbitrary value upon his claim with a view to choose his forum. The learned Single Judge observed that the view expressed in the case of Jumman Khan (Supra) indicated that the Court in order to ascertain the correct valuation can also go into the allegations made by the defendants in their written statement, and in case the defendants say that nothing is due to the plaintiff they cannot be allowed? to take the plea that the suit was not cognizable by the Court. He was of the view that a contrary opinion had been expressed in the case of Inayat Hussain AIR 1932 All 413 (Supra) in which it was said that where the valuation can be ascertained correctly the plaintiff cannot be allowed to put an arbitrary value upon his claim, nor permitted to over-value or under-value his claim with a view to choose his forum. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, of the view that the case should be decided by a larger bench, and this is how the matter has come up before us.

( 6 ) SECTION 8 of the Suits Valuation Act lays down that the value as determinable for purposes of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction in a suit for accounts shall be the same court-fee in such suits has to be paid in accordance with Section 7 (iv) (b) of the U. P. Court Fees act, which, so far as is material, reads as follows : "7 (iv ). . . . . . . . (b) for accounts : according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal: plaint or memorandum of appeal : provided. . . . . . . . Provided further, that in suits filed under Clause (b), such amount shall be the approximate sum due to the plaintiff and the said sum shall form the basis for calculating (or determining) the valuation of an appeal from a preliminary decree passed in the suit. " the second proviso to this sub-section is new and was added by the U. P. Amendment Act of 1938. The language of the proviso leaves no room for doubt that in suits filed