JUDGMENT - R.M. KANTAWALA, C.J.:---The defendants have filed this revision application against the finding given by the trial Court upon a preliminary issue holding that the trial Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. The plaintiffs filed this suit for accounts of a dissolved firm. The partnership business comprised of agricultural operations. 3. The contention of the defendants inter alia in the written statement was that some of the properties owned by the partnership were worth nearly Rs. 2 lakhs and therefore, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The issue as regards pecuniary jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue and it has been answered against the contention of the defendants. The Court held that the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is against this order passed by the trial Court that the present revision application has been filed by the defendants. 4. Mr. Rege, on behalf of the defendants, submitted that the trial Court was in error in holding that the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division had controversy jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He submitted that in view of the controversy raised by the defendants on inquiry as regards proper valuation ought to have been directed in the manner contemplated by section 9 read with section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. As such inquiry or investigation was not directed, the submission of Mr. Rege is that the finding of the trial Court on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is liable to be set aside. 5. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for dissolution and accounts of a partnership. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have valued the subject-matter of the suit at Rs. 300/-. They also averred in the plaint that if upon final taking of accounts any higher Court-fees are required to be paid, they are willing to pay the same. Strictly speaking, this is a suit for accounts and will be governed by the provisions of section 6(i) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under section 6(iv)(i), in a suit for accounts the amount of Court-fees payable depends upon the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. However, such valuation is subject to the provisions of section 8. Under this suit-clause a minimum Court-fees of Rs. Under section 6(iv)(i), in a suit for accounts the amount of Court-fees payable depends upon the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. However, such valuation is subject to the provisions of section 8. Under this suit-clause a minimum Court-fees of Rs. 20/- is payable. Section 8 provides for inquiry as to valuation of suit. That section provides that :--- "If the Court is of opinion that the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued or if an application is made to the Court for the revision of any valuation the Court may revise the valuation and determine the correct and may hold such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose." How such inquiry is to be made is laid down in section 9. 6. Now, in a suit, for dissolution and accounts of a partnership, at the stage of the institution of the suit it is impossible for any body to say with certainty as regards the amount to which the plaintiffs will be entitled upon proper taking of accounts. In every such suit, if there is a controversy between the parties as regards the quantum of share of each partner in the profits and losses in the firm, the same has to be determined. After such shares are determined and ascertained, ordinarily a preliminary decree is passed for taking accounts. In the taking of such accounts the assets which belong to the firm have to be ascertained, the liabilities of the partnership are to be determined and after making provision for discharge of such liabilities, the surplus amount has to be distributed amongst the partners in accordance with the provisions of the Partnerships Act. When such is the position, one cannot say with certainty as to what will be the amount payable to the plaintiffs in respect of their shares in the partnership assets. A Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, is now vested with pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs. 25,000/- and unless it is admitted by the plaintiffs or it is per se evident that the plaintiffs share in the partnership assets upon dissolution and accounts will exceed Rs. 25,000/-, it will not be possible for anybody at the initial stage of a trial to say that the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 25,000/-, it will not be possible for anybody at the initial stage of a trial to say that the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the present case on the material on record it is not possible to come to the conclusion that this Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, therefore, it is not possible for me to interfere with the finding given by the trial Court on this issue. If ultimately upon taking accounts the plaintiffs are entitled to a much larger amount, then proper Court-fees are always payable by them before they are entitled to a share pursuant to a decree. 7. In the result, the revision application fails and rule is discharged. The costs of this revision will be costs in the cause. -----