JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for account. The suit was resisted upon every ground which was possible to human ingenuity. The Court of first instance overruled the plea of limitation raised by the defendant and came to the conclusion that the defendant in his capacity as manager of the property belonging to the family was liable to render an account of his stewardship. A preliminary decree was accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant was saddled with her costs.
2. In the present appeal which relates only to costs it has been contended that the Court below ought not to have passed a decree for costs in plaintiff's favour in the preliminary decree but ought to have stayed its hands till at the time of the passing of the final decree. It is ako pointed out that the plaintiff had overvalued her claim.
3. We are of opinion that the plaintiff as the successful party in the suit was entitled to a decree for costs and it makes no difference that the costs were allowed in the preliminary decree. There is nothing in principle which precludes the Court from assessing costs and passing a decree for costs in favour of the successful party in a suit for accounts in the course of the preliminary decree. In a suit for accounts the relief cannot be valued with meticulous precision. The plaintiff could only make a rough estimate of the value of the claim and that is what appears to have been done in the suit. We think that the costs were rightly assessed and the decree passed by the Court below does not call for any interference. We dismies the appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.