Vijender Jain, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF has filed this suit for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright and passing off. The relief is valued at Rs. 200. 00 for the purpose of court free and jurisdiction and court fee of the amount of Rs. 20. 00 has been affixed. However, for the relief of rendition of account of profits, it is valued at Rs. 200. 00 for court fee and Rs. 5 lakh for purpose of jurisdiction. Paragraph 23 (c) of plaintiff is : - (C) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants, it is valued at Rs. 200. 00 for purposes of Court fee and thje requisite amount of Court fee has been affixed. This relief is valued at Rs. 5,50,00. 00 for the purpose of jurisdiction, as the plaintiff estimates that such an amount shall be found due to the plaintiff on accounts being rendered. ( 2 ) AT the outset this Court look objection that the Court fee paid on the plaint was arbitrary, whimsical and without basis as nothing has been averred in the whole plaint regarding the profits illegally earned by the defendant or approximation of the sale conducted by the defendants. Not even a whisper in the plaint has been made regarding damages being suffered by the plaintiff except a bald averment in para 23 (C) of the plaint that for the purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiff valued the relief for rendition of account at Rs. 5,50,000. 00. ( 3 ). Ajay Sahni, learned counsel for the plaintiff has addressed lengthly arguments mat it is the right of the plaintiff to value the relief for the purpose of jurisdiction under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 2 of me Court Fee Act, 1870 and Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 read along with Rule 3 and 4 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and on the basis of the aforesaid enactment Mr. Sahni has contended mat in view of the amendment in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and in view of Rules 3 and 4 of the said amendment, the plaintiff has got the right to fix any value for suits for rendition of accounts. [in para 4, Rule 4 is reproduced]. ( 4 ) MR. Sahni has contended mat in view of the amendment in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and in view of Rules 3 and 4 of the said amendment, the plaintiff has got the right to fix any value for suits for rendition of accounts. [in para 4, Rule 4 is reproduced]. ( 4 ) MR. Salmi has contended mat if me Court ultimately comes to an opinion from the material on record or evidence adduced that the suit is undervalued or over-valued, the Court can pass appropriate order. But at the lime of institution of the suit, law enjoins plaintiff the right to fix its own valuation for the relief of rendition of account and for valuation purposes of jurisdiction, in case of former, the suit has been valued at Rs. 200. 00 and the later at Rs. 5,50,00. 00. He has REFERRED TO the whole catena of cases i. e. M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. Vs. Vimal Pannalai, AIR 1988 SC 1636 , Brooke Bond Vs. Balaji Tea 1993 PTC 40 , M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. Vs. Vimla Panna Lal; AIR 1986 Delhi 439, M/s Eastern Kodak Company Vs. M/s M. R. Electronics, AIR 1995 PTC 146 and Automatic Electronic Ltd. Vs. R. K. Dhawan, 57 (1995) DLT 49 as well as M/s P. M. Diesels Ltd. Vs. M/s. Patel Field Marshal Ind:, FAO (OS) 270/95 decided on 13. 3. 1998. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid authorities, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff could put his own value for the purposes of jurisdiction and grievance that value for purpose of jurisdiction is higher would make no practical difference since the value for purpose of Court fee could be different in view of the Rules framed under Section 0 of the Suits Valuation Act. ( 6 ) THERE is no controversy regarding fixing of Court fee by the plaintiff on the relief of rendition of account, choice is left to the plaintiff to exercise that right in a proper manner. This view has been consistently taken by the Full Bench of this court in Suit. Sheila Devi Vs. Shri Kishan Lal Kaira and Ore. ; ILR 1974 (2) Delhi 491 as well as Division Bench of this court in M/s Fenner India Ltd. Vs. This view has been consistently taken by the Full Bench of this court in Suit. Sheila Devi Vs. Shri Kishan Lal Kaira and Ore. ; ILR 1974 (2) Delhi 491 as well as Division Bench of this court in M/s Fenner India Ltd. Vs. M/s Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ; FAO (OS) 204 and CM 2685/ 1995 decided on 9. 4. 1997. The authority REFERRED TO by learned counsel for the plaintiff i. e. P. M. Diesel Ltd. (supra) is of no help to him as in that matter the controversy arose on account of an application for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit was dismissed holding that plaintiff has not been able to prima facie show that territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, in the case before me, die plaintiff has tiled this suit seeking injunction, inter alia, alleging that according to him, plaintiff is fourth largest veterinary drug manufacturer in the country and he is seeking injunction in view of his trade mark being registered, the goods are being sold by the defendant by utilising the goodwill and trade name of the plaintiff. The prayer for rendition of account is ancillary to the prayer of injunction which is also made. In para 23 (b) for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining passing off, the plaintiff has given a valuation of Rs. 200. 00 for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. Without any averment in plaint in para 23 (c), the plaintiff has vlaued the relief for rendition of account for Rs. 200. 00 for the purpose of Court fee, while valuing it for the purpose of jurisdiction, the same relief is valued at Rs. 5,50,00. 00. ( 8 ) NO doubt law gives a right to the plaintiff to value the suit for the relief of rendition of account and for the purpose of jurisdiction separately. But whether the plaintiff has exercised that right to divest the right forum or has artificially invested this court with the jurisdiction, is a point which has to be pondered over. Whether the plaintiff has got the right to value the relief for jurisdiction in an arbitrary and whimsical manner? But whether the plaintiff has exercised that right to divest the right forum or has artificially invested this court with the jurisdiction, is a point which has to be pondered over. Whether the plaintiff has got the right to value the relief for jurisdiction in an arbitrary and whimsical manner? Whether the plaintiff has a right to value the suit without laying down any foundation in the plaint merely to exclude the jurisdiction of a court which otherwise would have got the jurisdiction but for three lines written in para 23 (c) of the suit ? These are certain issues which have to be addressed. ( 9 ) THERE cannot be two opinion with the proposition of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in view of the decisions REFERRED TO by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff can pay fixed court fee for unsettled accounts and for jurisdiction purposes such a suit can be valued in terms of valuation fixed by the plaintiff. ( 10 ) IN the case before me the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction has been quantified with the sole objective to confer jurisdiction if the valuation of the subject matter is over Rs. 5 lakhs, otherwise in the normal course, the jurisdiction would lie with the District Judge. No doubt law provides that in case of relief for rendition of account when the amount is not ascertained the plaintiff cannot be asked to give a specific and ascertained figure of the amount on which relief is sought in the suit. But that does not give a licence to plaintiff to give a wholly arbitrary and anreasonahle figure so as to divest a Court which has got the jurisdiction to try the suit and to invest a Court which for these aforesaid three lines would not have the jurisdiction to try the suit by giving a higher valuation so as to bring suit within the penuniary jurisdiction/of this court. ( 11 ) WOULD like to mention that peculiar situation has arisen in Delhi as most of the High Courts in the country do not have Original Side Jurisdiction. The suit in relation to infringement, passing oft" etc. is filed for obtaining perpertual injunction. ( 11 ) WOULD like to mention that peculiar situation has arisen in Delhi as most of the High Courts in the country do not have Original Side Jurisdiction. The suit in relation to infringement, passing oft" etc. is filed for obtaining perpertual injunction. Suit has to be filed before the District Judge but to bring this suit to be maintained in this Court, relief for rendition of account is added wherein relief for rendition of account is valued at Rs. 200. 00 and for the purpose of jurisdiction the relief is valued at more than 5 lakhs rupees, whole exercise is for maintaining the suit in this court and that is why figure of jurisdictional value is fixed over Rs. 5 lakhs as to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdict of the original side of the Delhi High Court. There is neither any nexus nor rational or objectivity and not even a whisper in the plaint as on what basis the approximation value of jurisdiction has been arrived at by the plaintiff at Rs. 5,50,000. 00, Least a plaintiff, if he feels and takes advantage of thesettled proposition of law to value the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction differently than for the purpose of relief, ought to have given some reasons in the plaint, which I have find totally missing in the case before hand. This fixation of valuation is demonstrably arbitrary, given to oust the jurisdiction of the Court of the first instance, i. e. the court of the District Judge. Relief of rendition of account is sought in this suit, which is essentially a suit for injunction this suit in this court in paragraph 23 (c) an averment has been made that for the purpose of jurisdiction, the value is fixed at Rs. 5. 50. 000. 00. The foundation of suit emanates from the breach of. legal obligation regarding copyright, trade mark and passing off, where the first and foremost relief is the relief of injunction. The relief for rendition of account is only to bring the suit within the ambit of section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act. read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules. The valuation in tilis suit over Rs. 5 lakhs is arbitrary and whimsical. ( 12 ) IN the case of Abdul Hamid Shamsi Vs. read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules. The valuation in tilis suit over Rs. 5 lakhs is arbitrary and whimsical. ( 12 ) IN the case of Abdul Hamid Shamsi Vs. Abdul Majid (1988) 3 SCR 507 , the Supreme Court held : "it is true that in a suit for accounts the correct mnouiil payable by one parly to the oilier can be ascertained only when the accounts are examined and it is not possible to give an accurate valuation of this claim at the inception of the suit. The plaintiff is, therefore, allowed to give his own tentative valuation. Ordinarily the court shall not examine the correctness ot the valuation chosen, hut the plaintiff cannot set arbitrarily in this matter. If a plaintiff chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure it is tantamount to not exercising his right in this regard. In such a case it is not only open to the Court but its duly to reject such a valuation". ( 13 ) THE Apex Court in M/s Commercial Aviation (supra) has held :- "we are also of the view that the plaintiff cannot whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for filing the suit most arbitrarily where there are positive materials and/or objective standards of valuation of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint. These materials or objective standards will also enable the court to determine the valuation for the purpose of Order VII, Rule 1 l (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Indeed, in Abdul Hainid Shamsi s case, it has been noticed by this court that the plaintiff has laid a claim to a sum of Rs. 1,16,796. 72, besides another sum of over Rs. ~84. 000. 00 as his share in the profit for a perticular period by reference to the proceeding of the Income tax Department mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint. Further a copy of the profit and loss account for the calender year 1979 was annexed by the plaintiff to the additional affidavit filed on his behalf before this court, which also gave positive indication as to the valuation of the relief. The plaintiff in that case valued the suit without making any reference whatsoever to those materials or objective standards available to him and in the context of these facts, this Court made the above observation. The plaintiff in that case valued the suit without making any reference whatsoever to those materials or objective standards available to him and in the context of these facts, this Court made the above observation. But if there be no material or objective standard, the plaintiff s valuation has to be accepted. " ( 14 ) IN A. KA. CT. V. C. T. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A. KA. CT. V. C. T. Venkatachalam Chettiar: AIR 1979 SC 989 , the Supreme Court held that in suits for account, it is not possible for the plaintiff to estimate correctly the amounts which he be entitled, to held : BUT it is necessary that the amount at which he values the relief sought for should be a reasonable estimate.- - - If on the materials available before it the Court is satisfied that the value of relief as estimated by the plaintiff in a suit for accounts is undervalued, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is, therefore, necessary that the plaintiff should take care that the valuation is adequate and reasonable taking into account the circumstances of the case.- - - If he cannot estimate the exact amount he can put a tenative valuation upon the suit for accounts which is adequate and reasonable. The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and deliberately undervalue the relief. " ( 15 ) CAN it be said, in view of what Surpeme Court laid down in M/s Commercial Aviation and Travels Co. (supra) that in the suit before me that there is material on the basis of which it could be judged as to how all of a sudden in para 23 (c) of the plaint the relief for rendition of account has been valued at Rs. 5,50,000. 00, whereas for the purpose of court fee it has been valued at Rs. 200. 00 ? I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has chosen said figure for filing this suit in an arbitrary manner in this court, thereby giving an artificial pecuniary jurisdiction to this court. ( 16 ) ARGUMENTS have been advanced before me by the learned counsel that this court is having concurrent jurisdiction in terms of Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 106 of the Trade and Mercantile Marks Act. There are no two opinions that in case where pecuniary valuation of the suit is over Rs. ( 16 ) ARGUMENTS have been advanced before me by the learned counsel that this court is having concurrent jurisdiction in terms of Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 106 of the Trade and Mercantile Marks Act. There are no two opinions that in case where pecuniary valuation of the suit is over Rs. 5 lakhs, this court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the suit exercising Original Civil Jurisdiction, Section 62 of the Copyright Act give jurisdiction to this Court on the Original Side to hear the suit in the same manner as the Court of District Judge subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction of over, five lakhs of rupees. ( 17 ) SECTION 15 of the Civil Procedure Code on the statute book lays down that : "15. Court in which suits to be instituted- - - Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. " ( 18 ) THUS when there are two forums available to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has to file the suit at the court of the lowest grade. The reasoning of S, 15 of the Civil Procedure Code that every suit should be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competen to try it, is intended for the protection of the Courts of higher grade from over burdening. The suit like the one before me has been filed by fixing a whimsical and arbitrary valuation with no material whatsoever. Thousands of suits arepending on the Original Side of the High Court. Litigants are waiting for more than 20 years for their substantive suits to be heard and rights determined but on account of three lines in the Plaint all these helpless litigants, having paid Court fee, are sidelined to decide an interlocutory application. This is not what the rule of law is meant for. Unnecessarily overburdening the Court system when there is efficacious machinery available, the ingenuity of making averment in the plaint regarding fixation of the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction, in my opinion, will not invest this Court with the jurisdiction to try the suit. For the reasons stated above, the plaint is returned with a direction that the same may be filed in the Court of District Judge having jurisdiction to deal with the matter.