https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301665 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. en-us Wed, 13 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:37:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301665 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301665