Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1 Plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 29.9.2008, Annexure P/l, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat thereby directing plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit by way of plaint Annexure P/2 seeking direction to the defendant to settle the account with the plaintiff according to entries made in the Bahi (account book) of the defendant and for directing the defendant to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff along with interest thereon @ 24% per annum. For the purpose of jurisdiction, the suit has been valued at Rs. 200/- only and court fee of Rs. 50/- has been affixed. The plaintiffs case is that the plaintiff purchased paddy for its rice mill from the defendant Commission Agent. The plaintiff also used to sell its produce through the defendant-firm. Defendants Accountant (Munim) supplied entries of defendants Bahi to the plaintiff depicting a balance of Rs. 23,66,255.50 payable to the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff made payments to the defendant in cash and kind and the total amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff came to Rs. 38,38,517.33 out of which the defendant paid Rs. 18,97,256.32 in cash and kind leaving balance of Rs. 19,41,261.1 which the defendant has not paid inspite of oral and written demands. It was also pleaded that in addition to the aforesaid amount, there may be some other amount also due from the defendant to the plaintiff. 3 The learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/l directed the plaintiff to pay advalorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioners suit is for rendition of account only and petitioner would pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount actually found due to the plaintiff from the defendant after the accounts are rendered. At this stage, the petitioner has not claimed recovery of any specific amount and therefore, the petitioner cannot be directed to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1. 6 The aforesaid contention is completely devoid of substance. At this stage, the petitioner has not claimed recovery of any specific amount and therefore, the petitioner cannot be directed to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1. 6 The aforesaid contention is completely devoid of substance. The petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate his claim without payment of requisite court fee. The court can lift the veil and look into the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff. In the instant suit, the plaintiff in the prayer clause has very cleverly claimed relief of settlement of account and recovery of amount found due. This has been done to avoid payment of ad-valorem court fee. On the other hand, there is categorical assertion in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint that a sum of Rs. 19,41,261.1 is due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of the said amount from the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff has been rightly directed by the trial court to pay ad-valorem court fee on the said amount. 7 Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to paragraph No. 7 of the plaint wherein it has been mentioned that there may be some other amount which has not been depicted in the copy of Bahi entries supplied to the plaintiff by Accountant of the defendant. However, this plea would rather go to show that the plaintiff not only claims recovery of Rs. 19,41,261.1 but also asserts that some more amounts in addition to the aforesaid amount may be found due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff is necessarily to pay advalorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1 which has definitely been claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff. 8 In addition to the aforesaid, it is also apparent that the plaintiff has camouflaged its claim by making prayer for settlement of account only but in fact, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of the aforesaid amount. In this context, it is significant to notice that nowhere in the plaint the plaintiff has stated as to how it is the duty of the defendant to render accounts to the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff has not even claimed relief of rendition of account. The plaintiff has not claimed that the defendant be directed to render the account. In this context, it is significant to notice that nowhere in the plaint the plaintiff has stated as to how it is the duty of the defendant to render accounts to the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff has not even claimed relief of rendition of account. The plaintiff has not claimed that the defendant be directed to render the account. The plaintiff has rather claimed that the defendant be directed to settle the account. However, at the same time, the plaintiff has claimed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1 is definitely due from the defendant to the plaintiff although there may be some more amount also due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot escape payment of ad-valorem court fee on the aforesaid amount as directed by the trial court. 9 It may be mentioned that even in a suit for rendition of account, the plaintiff cannot value the suit for the purpose of court fee at ridiculously low amount as done in the instant case. The plaintiff while claiming at least an amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1 to be due from the defendant has valued the suit at Rs. 200/- only. This is mockery of the law. The value put by the plaintiff is wholly arbitrary and cannot be accepted. In this conclusion, I am supported by various judgments namely Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid & others, 1989(1) R.R.R. 316:1988 Civil Court Cases 34 (SC) of Honble Supreme Court, ShriBanarsi Lal v. ShriKishan Chand and others, 1990(1) PLR 439 of this Court, Eastman Kodak Company v. M/s. M.R. Electronics & Ors., 1995(2) R.R.R. 608 : 1995(2) Civil Court Cases 356 (Delhi) of Delhi High Court, Bachni Devi v. Tej Ram and others, 1993 (Suppl) Civil Court Cases 393 (P&H) of this Court and M/s. R and D Enterprises (Exports) and another v. Air France and another, AIR 1998 Delhi 193 of Delhi High Court 10 To be fair to learned counsel for the petitioner, he has also cited certain judgments. In M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and others v. Vimla Pannalal, (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 423 of Honble Supreme Court and Kuldip Thapar v. Babita Nayar and others, 2004(2) R. C.R. (Civil) 800 : 2005(1) PLR 813 of this Court the suits were for rendition of account of partnership firm. These judgments are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. These judgments are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In judgment in the case of Hoshiar Singh v. Niranjan Singh, 2008(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 26 : 2008(3) PLR 347 of this Court,it is not clear as to what was the nature of allegations in the suit. Be that as it may, these judgments would not come to the help of the petitioner in the instant case because it is the definite case of the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 19,41,261.1 at least is due from the defendant to the plaintiff although some more amount may also be due. Consequently, the plaintiff has to pay the ad- valorem court fee on the aforesaid amount. 11 For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of superintending powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 12 As prayed for, the petitioner is given four weeks from today to pay the ad-valorem court fee as directed by the trial court.