Judgment :- 1. This revision is by the defendant against an order of the court below deciding a question of court fees. 2. The suit was by an agent against his principal requiring the settlement of accounts as regards the commission earned by the plaintiff during the course of his agency and for recovery of the amount found to be due after the rendition of the accounts. The suit was valued at Rs. 10,000 tentatively under S.3(c) of the Court Fees Act II of 1125. On the defendant's application for more particulars at early stage of the suit, the plaintiff filed statement showing Rs. 40691-5-0 as the amount due and that even provisionally. The defendant thereafter applied to the court to call upon the plaintiff to pay additional court fees on the amount mentioned in the statement or direct him to confine his claim to the plaint amount for which court fees has been paid. 3. The court below found from the averments in the plaint in the case that it could be maintained as a suit for accounts, and the basis of valuation adopted by the plaintiff was in the circumstances unobjectionable and accordingly dismissed the defendant's petition. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant revision petitioner says that no suit for accounts lies at the instance of an agent as against his principal, though it may be necessary on occasions to look into the accounts of the principal for purpose of arriving at the exact figure of remuneration or other claim due to the agent. The agent had necessarily therefore to quantimise the amount due to him and pay ad valorem court fees accordingly. Learned counsel relied on 1937 Cal. 359 Narmada Chandra v. Maharaja Bahadur Singh Dugar and certain other cases. 5. The case in 1937 Cal. 359 Narmada Chandra v. Maharaja Bahadur was concerned with a pleader's claim against his client for definite sum due in respect of professional work done on behalf of his client. The trial court had allowed the suit but the lower appellate court had thrown out the suit on the preliminary point that the plaintiff "had misconceived his remedy, which lay not in filing money suit but in bringing a proper suit for accounts in which a preliminary decree could be passed". The trial court had allowed the suit but the lower appellate court had thrown out the suit on the preliminary point that the plaintiff "had misconceived his remedy, which lay not in filing money suit but in bringing a proper suit for accounts in which a preliminary decree could be passed". Justice B.K. Mukerjee, as he then was, delivering the judgment of the Bench allowed the appeal and observed. "There cannot be in law a suit for accounts unless the defendant in the suit is under an obligation to render accounts to the plaintiff. The obligation is upon the agent to render accounts to the principal. The principal owes no obligation to render accounts to the agent. The mere fact that in ascertaining the sum due to the plaintiff it is necessary to investigate accounts does not alter the nature of the suit", and the learned judge in support referred to the ruling in 1918 Cal. 1037, Kshetra Nath v. Kalidasi Dasi to the effect that "A suit for the recovery of a specific sum of money does not assume the character of a suit for accounts merely because in the determination of the question in controversy accounts may have to be examined". 6. It is no doubt true that an agent is bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand and there is no provision for a converse proposition that a principal is liable to render account to his agent. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it cannot be laid down as an universal proposition that an agent could never have a right to account as against his principal. It must depend upon the nature of the transactions in which the agent had been engaged on behalf of the principal during the course of the agency as to whether in a particular case the agent can have an accounting from the principal. 7. Halsbury's Law of England, 3rd edition, p. 196 states without qualification that an agent has a right to have an account taken. 7. Halsbury's Law of England, 3rd edition, p. 196 states without qualification that an agent has a right to have an account taken. In Bowstead's Agency at page 165 of the 10th edition we find the following proposition stated: "where the accounts between a principal and agent are of so complicated a nature that they cannot be satisfactorily dealt with in an action at law, the agent has a right to have an account taken in equity, but the relation of principal and agent is not alone sufficient to entitle an agent to an account in equity, when the matter can be dealt with in an action at law" and this is because as mentioned in the footnote, the right of the principal may be founded on the fiduciary character of the agency. Story's Equity jurisprudence, 14th edn., Vol. II, p. 31 S.617 states: "There are usually exceptions to all rules, and where the principal has kept the accounts between him and his agent and the matters and things transacted in the course of the agency are within his own peculiar knowledge, the agent may ask for accounting". 8. The general rule therefore may be taken to be that the agent will not be entitled to an account against his principal. But this rule is however subject to exceptions in cases in which the relation between the agent and the principal is of a fiduciary character or the transactions between the parties are so involved and complicated that the right of accounting will alone serve to administer complete justice and we may also add where the accounting sought is ancillary to the main purpose of the action. Thus in Ram Lal v. Asian Assurance Co., 1933 Lah. 483 where the plaintiffs who were insurance agents were to be remunerated by a commission calculated on the premia paid on all policies effected or introduced through them, it was held that as the plaintiffs cannot certainly know which of these policies had lapsed, matured or been forfeited, they were entitled to call on the defendants for rendition of accounts as this was the only relief which will enable the plaintiffs to satisfactorily assert their rights". Tapp, J. observed during the course of the judgment "while the principal is under no statutory obligation to render accounts to his agent, he does become as accounting party in special circumstances or under trade usage or a definite contract" 9. The matter came up for consideration in the light of the Indian and English authorities in the recent Bench case in Basant Kumar v. Roshanlal 1954 Nag. 300. The plaintiff there had worked for the defendant book-seller as an agent on commission basis, canvassing in certain area for the sale of the defendant's books and did not know how many books were sold though his efforts as he could not keep any accounts of the transactions entitling him to the commission and the accounts were admittedly kept by the defendant. It was held (1) that in these circumstances the plaintiff could maintain an action for accounts against his principal the defendant, and (2) that there was no justification in such cases for insisting on a suit for a definite sum by recourse to the procedure for interrogatories and discovery instead of a straight-forward action for an account. In the opinion of the learned judges, there was no warrant for the unqualified proposition that a suit by an agent for an account against his principal can never lie. 10. The claim in the plaint herein is for commission payable to the plaintiff on percentage basis by the defendant company as remuneration for canvassing orders for the sale of raw rubber and latex in Bombay and Nagpur. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant company was in possession of all the accounts and records relating to the sale effected by him. In the light of the discussion above, there can be no doubt that the plaintiff was entitled to frame his suit as one for accounts and value the same for purpose of court fees accordingly. 11. The decision of the court below is therefore right and does not call for any interference. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.