1. This application in revision has arisen under the following circumstances : The plaintiff brought a suit in which he alleged that his father and the defendants joined together in a certain business which business was left in the sole control of his father; that his father had in the course of managing the business used a good deal of his own money; that his father had died, and on the face of the accounts a large sum of money was due to him as his father's heir from the defendants. He therefore sought to recover the amount that was due to him. He called the suit a suit for accounts. On his own showing the accounts were in his own hands, the defendants having taken no part in the management of the business and his father was the only accounting person in the matter. The suit was valued at Rs. 1,500 and he put forward accounts on the face of which his claim amounted to Rs. 21,000. The court below came to the conclusion that this was not really a suit for accounts at all but a suit to recover a certain sum of money due to the plaintiff from the defendants. It held that the plaintiff was the accounting party and not the defendants and it directed the plaintiff to pay an ad valorem fee on the Rs. 21,000 which on the face of the accounts was due to him,' The plaintiff has come here in revision. We agree with the court below that it is not a suit for accounts in which the plaintiffs valuation of the suit must be taken as correct and in which if a larger sum is found due than is mentioned in the plaint, that sum may be decreed to the plaintiff on his making good the deficiency in court fees. In our opinion the plaintiff is bound to pay an ad valorem fee on the maximum which he deems to be due to him. His valuation of the suit, that is Rs. 1,500, is clearly incorrect. An affidavit has been filed before us today which is somewhat vague. In paragraph 4 it is said that Rs. 10,000 will be found due. In paragraph 8 it is said that approximately the, correct valuation is Rs. 6,000. We do not propose to waste any more time over the matter. We direct that the plaintiff shall value his suit at the maximum amount which he deems due to him; that he shall pay court fee thereon and that shall be the maximum amount which can possibly be decreed to him. The court below will give the plaintiff a certain period of time within which to put in the valuation as directed above.
2. I will add a word or two to make clear why we are interfering in this case, because in these revision cases it frequently happens that misconception arises and the decision in one case is used as a precedent for the decision of another. In a recent decision of the Privy Council the general interpretation of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been re-stated, and it is quite clear that a mere error of law or fact in the decision of a case is no ground for interfering in revision. The Privy Council makes it clear that even in a case under Sub-section 3 of illegality or material irregularity, it must be shown that there is some irregular exercise of jurisdiction. 'The section is not directed against conclusions in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved' (Says Lord Atkinson). Now in this case the plaintiff put what the court below held to be a fictitious value upon a suit, namely Rs. 1,500. The rest of the claim indicated that the plaintiff's claim might amount to as much as Rs. 21,000. The court below holding that the Rs. 1,500 valuation was deliberately fictitious, ordered the plaintiff to pay court foes on a valuation of Rs. 21,000. It is in respect of the latter part of that order that we think we have jurisdiction under Section 115 to interfere. If the court conies to the conclusion that the plaintiffs valuation is deliberately fictitious it can reject the plaint but it cannot fix a valuation in place of the plaintiff's valuation. In this case the court fixed the valuation of Rs. 21,000 which the plaintiff had never fixed. In that respect the court did more than it had power to do. It ought to have compelled the plaintiff to make a fresh valuation and to have refused to entertain the suit if he did not.
3. We allow the revision to the extent mentioned above and return the record to the court below to carry out the order of this Court. The costs of this application will be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.