Tentative valuation in accounts suits cannot be rejected for undervaluation absent an objective basis on the plaint's face.

In a suit for rendition of accounts under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff may adopt only a tentative valuation because the exact amount becomes ascertainable after accounts are taken. Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC permits interference only where the court can identify a definite or objective standard showing that the valuation is arbitrary or unreasonable on the plaint's face. In the absence of such material, the court cannot compel a precise valuation at the threshold or reject the plaint for undervaluation. The Supreme Court held that a plaint statement suggesting a larger amount may become due was only an estimate, and the valuation could not be rejected as demonstrably arbitrary.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a suit for rendition of accounts falling under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff's valuation of the relief can be interfered with under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for undervaluation.

Analysis: In suits for accounts, the plaintiff may ordinarily make a tentative valuation because the correct amount, if any, becomes ascertainable only after accounts are taken. Order VII Rule 11(b) applies only where the Court can determine the correct valuation and then require correction. Where no definite or objective standard of valuation is available, the Court cannot insist on a precise valuation at the threshold and must accept the plaintiff's valuation tentatively. Interference is justified only where there are positive materials or objective standards on the face of the plaint showing that the valuation is arbitrary or unreasonable. The statement in the plaint that a larger amount might become due on taking accounts was treated as a mere estimate and not as a binding objective basis for valuation.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted for the relief of accounts was neither unreasonable nor demonstrably arbitrary, and the plaint was not liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(b).

---