Appellate jurisdiction in suit for accounts follows plaint valuation; section 5 delay relief may survive absent a formal application.

In a suit for accounts, appellate jurisdiction is governed by the valuation stated in the plaint unless the court has made a precise statutory determination and the plaint is formally amended; a party's conduct cannot confer jurisdiction contrary to statute, and there is no estoppel against statute. On limitation, section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act permits judicial discretion to extend time where the delay is explained on the record, and a separate formal application is not indispensable if the material already shows sufficient cause. Applying these principles, the lower appellate court's dismissal was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal to the lower appellate court was filed in the correct forum on the basis of the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction; (ii) whether, even if the appeal was filed in the wrong forum, sufficient cause existed for extending time under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Issue (i): whether the appeal to the lower appellate court was filed in the correct forum on the basis of the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction.

Analysis: In a suit for accounts, the value stated in the plaint governs jurisdiction unless it is precisely determined by the court in accordance with the relevant valuation procedure. A mere observation that the plaintiff expected a larger amount after taking accounts did not amount to a precise judicial determination of valuation. Since the plaint was not formally amended, the original valuation continued to govern. The conduct of the parties could not confer jurisdiction contrary to statute, and there can be no estoppel against a statute.

Conclusion: The appeal lay to the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge and not to the District Judge; the lower appellate court was wrong in holding otherwise.

Issue (ii): whether, even if the appeal was filed in the wrong forum, sufficient cause existed for extending time under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Analysis: The power under section 5 is a judicial discretion to be exercised to advance justice. A formal written application was not indispensable where the relevant material was already on the record and the delay was explained by the mistaken presentation of the appeal in the wrong court. Refusal of relief merely because no separate affidavit or formal application was filed would elevate procedure over justice.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause existed and time ought to have been extended in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate court was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for accounts, the forum of appeal is governed by the original plaint valuation unless the court has made a precise statutory determination and the plaint is formally amended; procedural lapses will not defeat relief under section 5 where sufficient cause is otherwise shown on the record.

---