AGA ABBAS HAJI AMIN ANWARI Vs. HAJI MOHOMED HAJI ALI JEERAHIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the plaintiff's appeal from an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court in a suit instituted by him in the City Civil Court.

(2.) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff in the City Civil Court after valuing it at Rs, 7,001. According to him a partnership was formed between him and the defendant on May 5, 1949; and that this partnership owned a number of establishments in Bombay and inAhmedabad. In his suit he sought for the dissolution of the partnership and accounts thereof, a declaration to the effect that certain establishments which were admittedly being run at Ahmedabad by the defendant also belonged to the partnership and a direction that the profits arising from this establishment should be taken into account when the accounts of the partnership were being taken. Another declaration which the plaintiff sought was that the sale proceeds of certain establishments at Bombay belonged to the partnership and that the defendant should be directed to account for them. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claim with regard to the establishments in Ahmedabad and as also with regard to the establishments at Bombay which were sold. While the suit was at the stage of trial Mr. Divan, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, felt that the plaintiff had. undervalued his claim for the purpose of court -fees and jurisdiction. Therefore, acting under Section 8A of the Court -fees Act which was amended by the Bombay Act XII of 1954, read with Order VII, Rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, he returned the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented to the proper Court as, according to him, the value of the suit for the purpose of court -fees was very much over Rs. 25,000, which is the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court.

(3.) MR . Chagla, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of Section 11 of the Court -fees Act, Section 8A must be deemed to be confined only to those suits the claim in which is inherently capable of valuation. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention in view of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court has in Govind Baboo Mendon v.Bharat Dyes and Chemical Co. (1958) First Appeal No. 183 of 1957, decided by S.T. Desai and K.T. Desai JJ., on November 28. 1958 (Unrep.). proceeded upon the view that the provisions of Section 8A would apply also to a suit for accounts.I may, however, point out that before a Judge comes to the conclusion that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court -fees, he must make an inquiry in the manner set out in Sections 8B to 8D. Of course, where the plaint itself discloses an objective standard, it may not be necessary for him to make such an inquiry but where, as here, the Judge has not regarded the plaint as furnishing an objective standard, he cannot base his conclusion upon any material other than that placed on record in an inquiry made by him under the provisions of Sections 8B to 8D of the Act.