Plaintiff is in revision against the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati in an unnumbered suit (R.R.No.2598 of 2007) filed for recovery of Rs.6.00 lakhs on the basis of ten promissory notes executed by defendant-respondent, whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge ordered for payment of Court fee separately on each of the ten promissory notes as per Section 6(3) (a) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act granting time till 17.7.2007.

2. The petitioner herein filed a suit before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for recovery of a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs based on ten promissory notes executed by the defendant herein, out of which, two promissory notes are executed for Rs.1.00 lakh each and the remaining eight promissory notes are executed for Rs.50,000/- each, alleging that the said amounts are borrowed by the defendant on the same day i.e. 27.10.2004 executing separate promissory notes. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is stated that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs on 27.2.2004 for business purpose from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes of Rs.1.00 lakh each and eight promissory notes of Rs.50,000/- each on the same day itself for the amounts borrowed according to his convenience for the taxation purposes and promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and delivered all the ten promissory notes after receiving the consideration. According to the petitioner, since the entire transaction is a single transaction happened and at one time on the same day and the cause of action being the same, he paid a court fee of Rs.11,826/- under Section 20 of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act (for short 'the Act').

3. It appears that the Office of the lower Court took an objection that each promissory note constitute separate cause of action and, therefore, each one has to be valued separately and separate court fee has to be paid as per Section 6(3)(a) of the Act on each of the promissory notes.

4. When the office objection was placed before the lower Court, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff placing reliance on the decision of this Court in SETH PURSHOTHAMADAS vs. PANNALAL1 contended that since the cause action is one and the same i.e borrowal of Rs.6.00 lakhs is one and the same and on the same day the execution of the promissory notes cannot be treated as different transactions and therefore the court fees paid on the total value of the promissory notes is correct.

5. On a consideration of Section 6(3)(a) of the Act and the decision relied upon by the plaintiff, the Court below held that the promissory notes filed by the plaintiff show that separate cheques were issued for each promissory note except the two promissory notes for Rs.1.00 each as security, drawn on two different banks. If the transaction was single there was no need to issue separate cheques as surety for the amounts mentioned under each promissory note and a single cheque for Rs.6.00 lakhs would have been issued as surety though separate promissory notes were executed. The learned Judge held that the promissory notes show distinct and separate causes of action regarding borrowal and regarding surety furnished to each of them and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot contend that the transaction is single transaction and the plaintiff has to pay court fees separately on each promissory note as per Section 6(3)(a) of the Act. Distinguishing the decision of this Court in Seth Purshothamdas case (1 supra), the learned Judge held that the facts in the said case are different from the facts of the present case and, therefore, the same has no application.

6. Before we examine the question that arises for consideration, Section 6(3)(a) of the act, which is relevant for our purpose, may be quoted: "Where a suit is based on two or more distinct and different causes of action and separate relief's are sought in respect thereof, either alter