JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order of the learned Additional Munsiff No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur dated October 17, 1974. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Harishankar Sidhant Shastri and Miss Pramila Rati Lal filed a suit against Prabhulal, Harsukhlal and Mrs. Sharda Sumatilal Kamdar for dissolution of partnership, or, in the alternative, for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts of the firm. After the parties had filed their pleadings issues were struck on 6/5/1971. The following two issues were struck on 30/7/71:- (1) whether the Court-fee paid by the Court is insufficient as alleged in paragraph 24 (A) of the amended written statement? (2) whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as its valuation exceeds the pecuniary limits of the Court? 3. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court left the issue No. 1 undecided, and held that the decision would he taken looking to the facts and circumstances and the lease deed produced in the case when the suit is finally decided. As regards issue No. 2, it was held that the learned lower Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Feeling aggrieved against this decision of the learned trial court, the defendant applicant Harisukh Lal has come up in revision before this Court. 4. It was contended on behalf of the defendant applicant that the plaintiffs have claimed a number of reliefs, and each relief has not been separately valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. I was further contended that in view of the plea contained in para No. 24 (A) of the amended written statement, the suit ought to have been valued at the market value of the plot in question. According to the defendant applicant the market value of the plot in question exceeds Rs. 75000/-. It was also contended that the learned lower court seriously erred in law in not deciding issue No. 1. It was contended that the issue No. 1 was struck on 30.7.71, and it ought to have been decided. Reliance was placed on Section 11 (2) of the Court fees Act. 75000/-. It was also contended that the learned lower court seriously erred in law in not deciding issue No. 1. It was contended that the issue No. 1 was struck on 30.7.71, and it ought to have been decided. Reliance was placed on Section 11 (2) of the Court fees Act. With to regard to issue No. 2 it was contended that the valuation of the suit ought to have been fixed keeping in view the market value of the plot in question and under these circumstances, the valuation would exceed Rs. 75000/-. It was also contended that the observation made by the learned lower Court while deciding issue No. 2 has virtually prejudiced the rights of the parties as contained and contemplated in issue No.4. 5. On behalf of the plaintiff non-petitioners it was contended that in a suit for dissolution of partnerships or for rendition of accounts, the plaintiff has a right to fix the valuation prima facie, and he is then called upon to pay the court fees accordingly. It on ultimate rendition of accounts, the plaintiff are found to be liable to pay additional court-fees, the court has always the discretion or the jurisdiction to call upon the plaintiffs to make good the court fees. It was also contended that the suit, in substance, does not relate to the recovery of possession of the plot of land leased by the State Government to the plaintiff No. 1, but in fact and in reality, the suit is for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts. The plaintiffs have prima facie, it was further contended, fixed the valuation at Rs. 5000/- and have paid sufficient Court fees on it. It was further contended that the revision petition, as brought by the defendant applicant, is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 6. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case perused. After going through the pleading of the parties, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiffs' suit in pith and substance is for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts. In such a suit, the plaintiff has a discretion to prima facie fix up the valuation of the suit. In the instant case, the suit has been valued at Rs. After going through the pleading of the parties, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiffs' suit in pith and substance is for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts. In such a suit, the plaintiff has a discretion to prima facie fix up the valuation of the suit. In the instant case, the suit has been valued at Rs. 5000/- for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, and sufficient court fees has been paid on this valuation. The learned lower court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suits up to the valuation of Rs. 5000/-. The suit in question has also been valued at Rs. 5000/-, and as such, it cannot be successfully urged that the valuation of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. 7. The ultimate court-fees payable by the plaintiff shall be determined in accordance with the amount arrived at by the rendition of accounts. If the court-fee is found to be inadequate or insufficient in proportion to the relief granted to the plaintiff the lower Court has always the jurisdiction to order the plaintiffs to make good the deficiency in the court fees. It cannot be said, under such circumstances, that the lower Court acted illegally or with material irregularity in keeping issue No. 1 undecided. 8. The learned counsel for the defendant-applicant has also urged that certain observation made while deciding issue No. 2 are likely to adversely affect the rights of the plaintiff under Issue No. 4. Learned lower Court was no, in any way deciding issue No. 4. Any observation made in deciding issue No. 2 will, therefore, have no effect on the respective contentions of the parties on issue No.4. The learned lower court would be completely at liberty to decide issue No. 4 exclusively on merits. 9. With there observations the revision petition filed by the defendant applicant is dismissed as being without force. *******