( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the ruling of puttaswamy J. , regarding the Court fee payable in WP. No. 11630 of 1978. The petitioner therein has presented this appeal. For the sake of convenience, he will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner.

( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner had impugned the order of the Tahsildar and Taluk Executive Magistrate, t. Narasipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Executive Magistrate') dated 7-8-1978 rejecting his (the petitioner's) application made under the karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In that application, he had prayed for declaring the mortgages executed by him in favour of respondents-2 to 11 in the writ petition, as having stood redeemed and for putting him in possession of the mortgaged properties. The executive Magistrate dismissed that application holding that he (the petitioner) was not a 'debtor' as defined in clause (c) of S. 3 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE Office of this Court had raised an objection that the Court fee of Rs, 100 paid on the Writ petition was not sufficient and that the petitioner had to pay deficient Court fee of Rs. 900 because he had sought for relief in respect of 10 separate mortgage transactions with respondents -2 to 11 therein, that although the Executive Magistrate had passed a common order, the petitioner had a distinct interest in respect of each item of property mortgaged separately in favour of each of respondents-2 to 11 and that as such he had to pay separate Court fee in respect of each transaction with respondents-2 to 11 separately.

( 4 ) THE office objection came up for consideration before the learned single judge who upheld it and directed the petitioner to pay the deficient Court fee of rs. 900 or to confine the writ petition to any one transaction only with one of the creditors respondents-2 to 11.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved by that ruling of the learned single Judge, the petitioner has presented this appeal.

( 6 ) WE issued notice to the learned government Advocate as a question of court fee arises in this appeal. The learned Govt. Advocate entered appearance and addressed arguments in support of the ruling of the learned single Judge.

( 7 ) COURT fee payable on a writ petition is governed by Clause (s) of Art. 11 in Sch. I! to the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court Fees Act' ). That Clause reads : (s) Petition to the High Court under Art 226 of the Constitution for a writ other than the writ of Habeas Corpus, or a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . One hundred rupees.

( 8 ) THUS, it is seen that under the court Fees Act a fixed court fee of Rs. 100 is payable on a writ petition irrespective of the value of the subject matter thereof.

( 9 ) IN holding that the court fee of rs. l'00 paid by the petitioner was not sufficient and that he was liable to pay a deficient court fee of Rs. 900, the reasoning of the learned single Judge was as follows :"the claim made by the petitioner in respect of each creditor is separate and distinct though the result may very much depend on the status to be determined by the Magistrate as to whether there was one application before the Magistrate and the same has been disposed of by one order cannot be decisive in examining the validity of the office objection. . . Rule-7 of the Rules (Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977) provides for the procedure to be followed in filing common petititions involving common questions of law and fact. That rule provides that several persons having similar but separate and distinct interests in the subject matter of controversy involving common questions of law and fact may file a common petition which is equivalent to the filing of a separte writ petition by each of the petitioners, and each petitioner is required to pay separate court fee as if he has filed a separate writ petition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In my view, the same is the positi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document