JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff has brought the defendant in this petition where he has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Non-applicant petitioner M/s Modi Alloys India Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh had brought a suit inter-alia against the defendant petitioner herein, for recovery of the amount to be found due against him on settlement of accounts between the parties, details of transactions whereof were furnished in the plaint. 3. Application for dismissal of the suit was made by the petitioner-defendant claiming therein that requisite ad valorem court fee on the relief sought by the plaintiff had not been paid and thus the suit should be dismissed. Finding no merit in the application of the petitioner defendant, the same was dismissed by the lower court. 4. Perusal of the paper book reveals that the respondent-plaintiff had invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court for a money decree giving particulars of the transactions of the accounts inter-se the parties and had left the matter to the court for adjudication thereof. Though tentative court fee had been affixed but an undertaking had been furnished that further court fees, if any payable, on the amount adjudicated in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, would duly be paid. 5. The lower court has very deftly handled the multiple facts having bearing on the case and had rightly come to the conclusion that the actual amount payable by the petitioner-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff could only be ascertainable after settlement of the accounts inter-se the parties after the evidence is led by them before the court. 6. The lower court had rightly observed that in fact, nature of the suit basically was for rendition and settlement of accounts and only thereafter question of recovery of an amount so settled after evaluation of evidence by the court, would arise. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as below:- “... The factum of amount due against the defendant in reciprocation to the sale made to the defendant and any amount paid in advance to the defendant is a matter of evidence. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as below:- “... The factum of amount due against the defendant in reciprocation to the sale made to the defendant and any amount paid in advance to the defendant is a matter of evidence. Thus, the actual amount liable to be recovered from the defendant, can only be ascertained after the settlement of the amount inter se the parties, as being already paid to each other. Thus, the nature of suit reveals that the present suit is basically for the rendition/settlement of the account and then for the recovery of amount as per the settlement, so at this stage the tentative court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper for the actual valuation, will depend upon the merits of the case as per the evidence led by the parties. However, the issue regarding court fee shall be framed separately and any deficiency, if appears to the court at the time of arguments stage, shall be asked to be made good by the court. ...” 7. The court is also cognizant of the fact that if any further court fees is payable on the relief sequelly adjudicated after consideration and appraisal of the evidence, would be payable by the respondent-plaintiff. 8. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the petition. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————