JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, vide which the application for dismissal of the counter claim filed by the defendant-respondents has been declined. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of certain sums of principal and interest against the respondents. The respondent-defendants filed a counter claim in the suit against the petitioner-plaintiff. The defendants assessed the value of the counter claim at Rs. 1,000/- and paid court-fee of Rs. 150/-. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, for rejection of the counter claim filed by the respondents on the ground of deficiency of court-fee on the ground that the defendants had made a claim of Rs. 15,00,000/- and, thus, the assessment of Rs. 1,000/- made by them was arbitrary. It was pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants ought to have affixed the court-fee on the sum of Rs. 15,000/-. The prayer made by the plaintiff in the application has been declined by the trial Court vide the impugned order. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in paras 6 and 10 of the counter-claim filed by the respondents it has specifically been pleaded that they owe a sum of Rs. 15,000/- against the plaintiff. Thus, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the counter claim. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Abdul Hamid Shamai v. Abdul Majid and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1150, wherein it has been held by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court that in a suit for accounts, the tentative valuation given by the plaintiff should not be arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. However, the ratio of the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts appearing in the present case. In the counter claim the defendants have alleged that in the year 2000-01, they had sold the crop of Rs. 6,59,899.60 with the plaintiff, out of which a sum of Rs. 50,000/- had been received by them from the plaintiff. In the counter claim the defendants have alleged that in the year 2000-01, they had sold the crop of Rs. 6,59,899.60 with the plaintiff, out of which a sum of Rs. 50,000/- had been received by them from the plaintiff. However, in para 6 of the counter claim, it has been alleged by them that they had sold the crop of Sauni 1995 to Sauni 2000 to the plaintiff. In the end of the para it has been stated that if "the account is settled, defendant will owe amount of Rs. 15 lacs towards plaintiff..." In the case reported as M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and others v. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1636, in similar facts and circumstances in para 33 of the judgment it has been held by their Lordships of the Apex Court as under :- "We are unable to accept the contention. The statement does not, in our opinion, constitute any objective standard of valuation or a positive material from which it can be said with any amount of certainty that the valuation of the relief for accounts should at the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. The respondent was not required to make such a statement in the plaint. It is the wishful thinking of the respondent that on account being taken, she would be entitled to take such a huge amount." Similarly in the present case also no specific amount for the year 1995 to 1999 has been given in the counter claim. On the basis of the findings of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Co.s case (supra), it has been held by this Court in a very recent judgment reported as Kuldip v. Babit Nayar, 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 673 (P&H), that "it was only the wishful thinking of plaintiff that such an amount may be found due. There is no objective standard of valuation on the basis of which Court can arrive at a definite conclusion" under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of C.P.C. "directing the plaintiff to affix the Court-fee on that basis." In M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Co.s case (supra) it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under :- "Under Order 7 Rule 11(b) C.P.C. a court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been undervalued, which necessarily means that the court is able to decide and specify and, after determination of the correct value of the relief, requires the plaintiff to correct his valuation within a time to be fixed by the court. If the court cannot determine the correct valuation of the relief claimed, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and consequently, Order 7 Rule 11(b) will not be applicable. 5. But where there are objective standards of valuation or, in other words, the plaintiff or the court can reasonably value the relief correctly on certain definite and positive materials, the plaintiff will not be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation de hors such objective standards or materials..." In the present case the plaintiff has not rendered the account of the sale made by the defendants to it. There are also no objective standards on the basis of which the assessment of the valuation of the suit for the purpose of the Court-fee could be made. In view of the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in M/s Commercial Aviation and Trading Co.s case (supra), I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the trial Court and I uphold the same. 5. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order of stay passed by this Court on 20.5.2004 stands vacated. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 9.12.2004. Petition dismissed.