ORDER K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The Civil Revision has come up for admission. The question is whether notice is to be ordered. The defendants in a suit for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts winding up the business, partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiffs to them, are the petitioners in the Civil Revision. The plaintiffs respondents valued the reliefs at Rs. 20,000/- under S.36 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 and paid court fee accordingly. In the written statement the defendants petitioners contended, among other things, that the valuation shown in the plaint and the court fee paid are not proper and correct. At the instance of the petitioners, the issue regarding court fee was preliminarily heard and decided by the trial court. Rejecting the contentions of the petitioners the trial court held: "Under S.36(1) of the Court Fees Act, a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts or for accounts of dissolved partnership, fee shall be computed on the value of the plaintiff's share in the partnership as estimated by the plaintiff. Sub clause(2) of S.36 provides that if the value of the plaintiff's share as ascertained in the suit exceeds the value as estimated in the plaint no decree, or where there has been a preliminary decree, no final decree, shall be passed in favour of the plaintiff, no payment shall be made out of the assets of the partnership and no property shall be allotted as for the plaintiff's share, until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had suit comprised the whole of the value so ascertained, is paid. Sub clause (3) provides for the payment of court fee by the defendant and has no application here. A reading of Clause.1 and 2 of S.36 clearly shows that the plaintiff is at liberty to sue for his share by estimating the share value and payment of court fee thereon and if ultimately it is found that the plaintiff's share is ascertained as something more than the estimate made in the plaint he will be liable to pay it i.e. on such final ascertainment of the share due to the plaintiff. The suit has not reached that stage and the share that is actually due to the plaintiff will be ascertained only at the time of the disposal of the suit. The suit has not reached that stage and the share that is actually due to the plaintiff will be ascertained only at the time of the disposal of the suit. Till then the estimate made by the plaintiff for his share will stand and the plaintiff has estimated his share value at Rs. 20,000/- and he has paid court fee on that amount and therefore I find that the plaintiff has paid the correct court fee as matters now stand. Issue found accordingly." (Para 3). The petitioners filed an application for review of the above finding of the trial court. The trial court dismissed that application for review holding that there was no error apparent or patent mistake in the order sought to be reviewed. In this Civil Revision the petitioners have challenged both the above orders of the trial court. 2. Shri P. C. Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected under O.7 R.11 of the Civil Procedure Code when the relief in a suit for accounts is undervalued. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs in this case were aware of the profits of the firm and hence the trial court should not have accepted the valuation put by the plaintiffs in the plaint. It was further contended that, at any rate, when the claim in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are entitled to get more amounts than what has been stated in the balance sheet the trial court ought to have held that the plaint was under valued. 3. The learned counsel also referred to certain decisions in support of his contentions. In Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkitachalam Chettiar ( 1980 (1) SCC 616 ) the Supreme Court held: "Therefore, in coming to the conclusion that the suit is under valued the court will have to take into account that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after the taking of the accounts. If he cannot estimate the exact amount he can put a tentative valuation upon the suit for accounts which is adequate and reasonable. If he cannot estimate the exact amount he can put a tentative valuation upon the suit for accounts which is adequate and reasonable. There must be a genuine effort on the part of the plaintiff to estimate his relief and not a deliberate underestimation." In the above case, the High Court held that the suit was not properly valued, hut the Supreme Court in appeal interfered with that finding. In M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur ( AIR 1972 SC 2379 ) the question of undervaluation as such did not come up for consideration. One of the questions considered was whether the enquiry into pauperism is a matter exclusively between the applicant and State. The Supreme Court held: "It follows therefrom as a corollary that the proceedings to establish that the applicant plaintiff is a pauper, which will take away that immunity, is a proceeding in which the defendant is vitally interested. This is further borne out by O.33, R.6 which confers the right on the opposite party to participate in the enquiry into the pauperism and adduce evidence to establish that the applicant is not a pauper." (Para 7) In Sethi's case, the Supreme Court had also occasion to consider the revisional powers of the High Court under S.115, CPC. The Supreme Court held: "S.115 empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction, (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the High Court is satisfied on these three matters it has no power to interfere because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate court on questions of fact or law. A distinction must be drawn between the errors committed by subordinate courts in deciding questions of law which have relation to. or are concerned with, questions of jurisdiction of the said court, and errors of law which have no such relation or connection. A distinction must be drawn between the errors committed by subordinate courts in deciding questions of law which have relation to. or are concerned with, questions of jurisdiction of the said court, and errors of law which have no such relation or connection. An erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate court which has no relation to questions of jurisdiction of that court, cannot be corrected by the High Court under S.115." (Head Note F) 4. S.36 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, for short the Court Fees Act, reads: "36. Suits for dissolution of partnership: (1) In a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts or for accounts of dissolved partnership, fee shall be computed on the value of the plaintiff's share in the partnership as estimated by the plaintiff. (2) If the value of the plaintiff's share as ascertained in the suit exceeds the value as estimated in the plaint, no decree, or where there has been a preliminary decree, no final decree, shall be passed in favour of the plaintiff, no payment shall be made out of the assets of the partnership and no property shall be allotted as for the plaintiff's share until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable bad the suit comprised the whole of the value so ascertained, is paid. (3) No final decree shall be passed, no money shall be paid and no allotment of property shall be made in favour of a defendant in any such suit as, for or on account of, his share of the assets of the partnership, until the fee computed on the amount or value of his share of the assets of the partnership is paid." It is true that O.7 R.11, CPC., empowers the Court to reject the plaint if the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed when required by the Court. But the suit in question is one for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts and S.36(1) of The Court Fees 'Act gives the plaintiff the freedom to value the plaintiff's share as estimated by him and pay court fee accordingly. But the suit in question is one for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts and S.36(1) of The Court Fees 'Act gives the plaintiff the freedom to value the plaintiff's share as estimated by him and pay court fee accordingly. Not only that, the Court has power under S.36(2) to direct the plaintiff to pay the difference between the court fee actually paid and the court CPC fee that would have been payable when the value of the plaintiff's share as ascertained in the suit exceeds the value as estimated in the plaint. Going by the scheme of S.36 of the Court Fees Act, a plaintiff in a suit for dissolution of partnership cannot escape the payment of proper court fee. In that case, why should the Court give a preliminary finding in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts on the valuation of the plaintiff's share and the court fee paid. It is significant to note that the defendants - petitioners do not admit in the written statement that the plaintiff's share will be so much. It cannot be said that in this case the plaintiffs have deliberately undervalued their share of the assets of the partnership. Over and above all these, what is the scope for interference by this Court in revision under S.115 of the CPC. The orders impugned do not suffer from any error of law which has any connection or relation to the question of jurisdiction of the trial court which passed them. If this Court orders notice on this Civil Revision it will be committing an error of jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision is dismissed in limine.