Honble YADAV, J.–The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership on 26.5.73. It was alleged that the plaintiff had 7 annas share and the defendants No.3 and 4 had 4.5 annas share each in the profits of the firm. It was averred that the defendants concealed the income of the partnership and the plaintiffs share hence he prayed for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. (2). The defendants filed their written statement on the ground inter alia that the partnership was dissolved on 27.3.69 and a sum of Rs. 62,000/- was found due against the plaintiff. Other allegations were also averred in the written statement to the effect that accounts were maintained, the statements and returns were pre- pared by the plaintiff himself. The defendants also raised a plea that suit has not been properly valued and the court fees is insufficiently paid. (3). The defendants did not comply with the direction of the court for inspection of the account books by the plaintiff, therefore, their defence was struck off. Thereafter the suit proceeded ex parte against the defendants and the plaintiff led his ex-parte evidence. Thereafter on 9.1.75 the Addl. District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, passed the following order :- ``A perusal of the plaint shows that the suit has not been valued strictly in accordance with Sec. 34 Raj. Court Fees Act. The plaintiff is, there- fore, directed to value the suit in proper manner get it amended for that purpose and deposit the court fees on the basis of the estimated value of the plaintiffs share in the firm assets. The plaintiff shall do this within 20 days. Put up on 3.2.75 Pronounced. (4). It is apparent from perusal of the record that the plaintiff appellant instead of complying with the order dated 9.1.75 within the time granted by the court he moved a review petition against the aforesaid order which was rejected on the ground that as the plaintiff failed to comply with the order dated 9.1.75 within the time allowed by the court, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Sec. 11(2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `The Act). It is true that the learned trial court did not notice the mandatory provisions contemplated under O.7 R. 11 CPC under which a plaint can be rejected if deficiency of court fees is not made good within the time allowed by the court. It is further true that once the plaint is rejected under O.7 R. 11 CPC a decree is drawn which is appealable. Here in the present case it apears that as the plaint was not rejected under O.7, R.11 CPC but it was rejected under Sec. 11(2) of the Act therefore decree was not drawn. (5). Be that as it may, from the order passed by learned trial court on 15.7.76, rejecting the plaint under Sec. 11(2) of the Act it is borne out that plaintiff appellant specifically alleged in his plaint that a sum of Rs. 93,000/- comes to his share in the assets of the firm subject to some fluctuations because of loss shown in the firm but in Paragraph 8 of the plaint he averred that his share in the firms property may be more than 1 Lakh. (6). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order dated 9.1.75 and also the order dated 15.7.76 passed by learned trial court. (7). It is urged by the learned counsel for appellant that since it was a suit for accounts therefore instead of pressing into service sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act, the court ought to have pressed into service, the mandatory provisions contemplated under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 33 of the Act which clearly provides that where the amount payable to the plaintiff as ascertained in the suit is in excess of the amo- unt as estimated in the plaint no decree directing payment of the amount as so ascertained shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable, had the suit comprised the whole of the amount so ascertained, is paid. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited my attention towards sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 33 according to which if the additional fee is not paid within such time as the court may fix, the decree shall be limited to the amount to which the fee paid extends. In nut-shell the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that although sub-sec. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited my attention towards sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 33 according to which if the additional fee is not paid within such time as the court may fix, the decree shall be limited to the amount to which the fee paid extends. In nut-shell the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that although sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 has general application to all suits but sub-sec. (2) and (3) of Sec. 33 of the Act carves out an exception in cases of suits for rendition of accounts where the payment of actual courts fee can be in- sisted only after passing of the decree not prior to it as has been done in the present case by the learned trial court in passing the impugned orders on 9.01.75 and 15.7.76. (8). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Shri S.C. Maloo refuted the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the appellant and streneously urged before me that in fact the present suit is not a suit for rendition of accounts alone but it is a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts therefore in the present set of circumstances sub-secs. (2) and (3) of Sec. 33 of the Act cannot be pressed into service as argued by the learned counsel for plaintiff appellant. According to Shri Maloo in the present case learned court below has not committed any error of law in applying the provisions mentioned under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 34 of the Act. (9). I have given my most anxious thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Suffice it to say in this regard that whether a suit for rendition of accounts is filed or a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership is filed the phraseology of Sec.33 and Sec. 34 of the Act make the intention of State Legislature clear to the effect that a plaintiff may not be burdened with court fee to be paid on an amount which is not capable to be specified or ascertained at the time of institution of a suit. The State Legisla- ture thought it proper and fair to have court fee paid by the plaintiff on amount which the plaintiff tentatively considers in his bonafide and reasonable belief to be the amount at which he assesses the value of the relief so that he can ultimately pay the amount of actual court- fee in a suit for rendition of accounts or in a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership when a decree in terms thereof is passed provided the court is satisfied objectively that plaintiff has not undervalued the suit in a arbitrary manner rediculously at low valuation in order to evade the payment of court fee at the time of institution of suit. I hold that since in the present case suit was filed for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts therefore Sec. 34 is applicable and not Sec. 33 of the Act as argued by lea- rned counsel for the appellant. (10). I am of the view that even under Sec. 34 of the Act where suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts is filed it is to be valued according to the value on which the relief is sought and it is specifically provided that in all such suits, the plaintiff shall state the amount on which relief is sought. In other words, the valuation of such suits for the purpose of court fee would be computed tentatively fixed the plaintiff in his plaint in a reasonable and bonafide manner. As regards difference of the court fee in such suits is concerned it shall be realised from the plaintiff as envisaged under Sec. 33 and Sec. 34 of the Act after passing of the decree and if the plaintiff fails to pay the court fee after amount is ascertained in the decree then he has to suffer the consequences enumerated therein. (11). Here in the present case, the learned courts below have committed substantial error of law in not looking sub-sec. (2) and sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 34 of the Act. (12). Let us apply the aforesaid proposition of law enunciated in the preceding paragraph of this judgment to the facts of this case. (11). Here in the present case, the learned courts below have committed substantial error of law in not looking sub-sec. (2) and sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 34 of the Act. (12). Let us apply the aforesaid proposition of law enunciated in the preceding paragraph of this judgment to the facts of this case. To my mind the facts averred in Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 by the plaintiff, disclosing his share to be of 93,000/- in the assets of the firm deserves to be treated to be reasonable and bonafide valuation of the present suit at the time of its institution and as such he is required to pay court fee on the aforesaid amount. (13). Learned counsel for the respondent urged that this appeal is not accompanied with decree, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It is true that technically an appeal either under Section 96 or under Section 100 CPC is always filed against a decree and not against a judgment but under the rules appeals are always accompanied with judgments and decrees both. (14). Here in the present case apart from the provisions of the Act, provisions of O.7, R.11 CPC are also applicable which escaped the notice of learned trial court. As a matter of fact once a plaint is rejected under O.7, R. 11 CPC a decree is drawn but there is no law to draw a decree when a plaint is rejected under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The basic question would be whether the plaintiff-appellant could be allowed to suffer because of any error or mistake committed by the court ? If the plaintiffs plaint would have been rejected under O.7 R. 11 CPC such order would have fallen within the definition of decree as envisaged under sub-sec. (2) of Section 2 CPC. In the instant case, the plaint was not rejected under O.7, R. 11 CPC but it was rejected under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act where such orders of rejection of plaints do not fall within the definition of decree. It would not be in the interest of justice to allow the plaintiff-appellant to suffer due to mistake or error of the court in not looking in to the mandatory provisions contemplated under O.7, R. 11 CPC. (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act where such orders of rejection of plaints do not fall within the definition of decree. It would not be in the interest of justice to allow the plaintiff-appellant to suffer due to mistake or error of the court in not looking in to the mandatory provisions contemplated under O.7, R. 11 CPC. Apart from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am also of the view that substantial justice should not be allowed to suffer because of the technical mistake as argued by learned counsel for the res- pondent and the court has authority in law to dispense with filing of a decree under its inherent jurisdiction. (15). It is well to remember that either in a suit for rendition of accounts or in a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership as contemplated under Section 33 and 34 of the Act respectively the correct amount payable by either plaintiff or defendant can be ascertained only when the accounts are examined by courts in the light of evidence adduced by both the contesting rival parties and it is not possible to give an accurate valuation of such suits at the time of institution by plaintiff. Hence plaintiff is allowed to give his own tentative valuation. Ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness of the valuation averred by the plaintiff in his plaint provided averments regarding valuation of such suits by plaintiff are found by the court to be reasonable and bonafide. (16). As a result of aforementioned discussion the order dated 9.1.75 without specifying the amount of valuation fixing date for amendment of the plaint and payment of court fee and the order dated 15.7.76 passed by court rejecting plaint under Section 11(2) of the Act are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. Since I am satisfied that valuation of Rs. 93,000/- averred by plaintiff in Paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the plaint is reasonable hence by invoking the provisions of O.7, R. 11 CPC I grant two months time to the plaintiff to make the deficiency of court fee good on the aforesaid valuation failing which the plaint shall be rejected. _