P L D 1969 Peshawar 175 (PLP)

This is an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, directed against the order dated 10‑9‑68, whereby the appellant's application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of legal proceedings, was refused.

2. On 4‑11‑67 Qazi Muhammad Sharif plaintiff instituted a civil suit for the rendition of accounts against the Pakistan Boy Scout Association through Chief Commissioner, National Boy Scout Association, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hazara, Abbottabad. On 10‑2‑1968 defendant No. 1, through counsel, applied for the stay of proceedings of the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act and under section 151, C. P. C. The learned Senior Civil Judge by his order dated 10‑9‑1968 dismissed this application. The Pakistan Boy Scout Association, defendant No. 1, preferred this appeal in the High Court.

3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff‑respondent raised a preliminary objection that the value of the original suit being less than Rs. 25,000, this appeal, in view of section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, lies to the Court of the District Judge, rather than this Court.

4. Under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, an appeal shall lie to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the orders from the order "(V) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement", on an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act by a party to the arbitration agreement. Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act defines that a "Court" means a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject‑matter of the reference if the same had been the subject‑matter of a suit. In considering the question of stay of suit, the Court must consider the suit as it is pleaded and framed. Reference Johurmull Parasram and others v. Louis Drayfus & Co. Ltd. (A I R 1949 Cal. 179). Under section 7 of the Court Fees Act, computation of court‑fee payable in suits for account (xi) (iv) (JI) is to be done "according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal". "In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought". Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act lays down :‑ "Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870, section 7, paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix), and paragraph (x), clause (d), court‑fees are payable ad valorem tinder the Court Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court‑fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same." A suit is one for accounts and not for money, if the plaint shows that the defendant is an accounting party and that the plaintiff claims on the footing that an account has to be taken to ascertain the sum due to him. Order VII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the plaintiff should approximately state the amount he claims and clause 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act also enjoins the plaintiff to state the amount at which he values the relief sought. This amount determines the court‑fee as well as the forum. In a suit for accounts the plaintiff is at liberty to value the suit as he pleases. It is open to the plaintiff to value his suit for the purposes of court- fees at any figures he chooses. Keeping the provisions of' section 7 (iv) (f ) of' the Court Fees Act in juxta‑position with section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value for purposes of ` court‑fee and jurisdiction must be the same. The value given in the plaint in suits for accounts is merely tentative, and is not to be fixed according to the approximate amount due after settlement of accounts. In the present case the plaintiff has sued the defendants for rupees four lakhs payable after rendition of accounts. The plaintiff has put the value for the purpo3es of court‑fee at the fixed rate of Rs. 15 and fixed the value for purposes of jurisdiction at Ks.

200. For the purpose of choosing the forum of appeal the appellant in suit for accounts is to be guided only by the value for purposes of jurisdiction, which has been put by the plaintiff. In Muhammad Hussain v. Manshah Khan and another (P L D 1954 Bal. 37) it has been ruled that :‑ "In a suit for rendition of accounts, the plaintiff valued the relief for purposes of court‑fee Rs. 100 but alleged in the body of the plaint in compliance with rule 2 of Order VII, C. P. C. that there may be due Rs. 3,000 to him from the defendant. Held, that the plaintiff can put any arbitrary value under section 7 (iv) (f) . of Court Fees Act, and the approximate value as given in plaint under rule 2 of Order VII, C. P. C. cannot be questioned by Court." In Atma Ram‑Charan Das v. Bisheshar Nath‑Dina Nath (A I R 1935 Lah. 689), it has been held :‑ "In a suit for accounts it is for the plaintiff to put his own valuation upon the plaint. The approximation may be rough and ready and plaintiff cannot be prejudiced or damnified merely because he has added to the plaint a computation which it was unnecessary for him to give. Where plaintiff referred to a sum of more than Rs. 8,000 as due to him, but he valued the suit for purposes of court‑fees and juris diction at Rs. 500 Held, that the valuation was according to law." In A. K. A. C. T. V. Chidamharam Chettiar v. A. L. P. R. S. Muthia Chattiar (A I R 1937 Rang. 320), it has been ruled :‑ "In a suit for accounts the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is governed by the value of the suit as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint and not by the amount which may be found and decreed by the Court. In Malik Feroze Din and others v. Malik Muhammad Din (A I R 1937 Lah. 694), it has been held :‑ "The word `suit' in part 2 of section 7 (iv)(f), Court Fees Act, is wide enough to include both plaint and memorandum of appeal. In a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, the plaintiff alone can reasonably be expected to know approximately the amount which will turn out to be due to him. On a preliminary decree for taking accounts in such a suit, if the defendant appeals disputing his liability to account for the amount fixed by the plaintiff, the defendant must value his appeal at the valuation put in by the plaintiff in the plaint for purposes of court‑fees. He cannot value the appeal at any figure he likes and different from that in the plaint."

5. Consequent to the above discussion, the Court must consider the present suit as it is pleaded and framed. The value for the purposes of jurisdiction as fixed by the plaintiff at Rs. 200 is to be taken into consideration for choosing the forum of the appeal. As such an appeal under section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, lies to the Court of District Judge.

6. The preliminary objection prevails. I, therefore, order that the appeal should be returned to the appellant for presen tation in the proper Court of appeal. No order as to costs. A. E./K. B. A. Order accordingly.