1. The Plaintiffs are members of the co-operative society in which Defendant No.1 is also a member. Defendant No.2 is an advocate practicing in this Court. Defendant No.3 is joined as a formal party and no relief has been claimed against him.

2. Certain disputes arose between plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 as an advocate of Defendant No.1, on instructions from Defendant No.1, addressed a complaint to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Housing Society, KWest Ward, Mumbai making various allegations against the plaintiffs. In view thereof, the plaintiffs state that the plaintiffs received various phone calls from friends and relatives expressing surprise and shock and the plaintiff's claim that their reputation among their friends and relatives was affected. The relief sought in the plaint is as under:-

“(a) that the Defendants be ordered and decreed to pay jointly and severally to the Plaintiffs the said sum of Rs.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Only) together with interest @24% per annum thereon or at prevailing market rate whichever is higher or at such rate as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper from the date of receipt of the Notice of demand dated 14th November 2005 till payment and/or realization;”

3. Defendant No.1 had filed a Chamber Summons bearing No. 498/2006 to direct the Prothonotary and Senior Master to reassess the court fees payable with the suit, call upon the Plaintiffs to pay the deficit court fees and if not paid reject the suit under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this Court by an order dated 27th July 2007 directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to hold an enquiry to ascertain whether the valuation made in the suit was proper and whether the court fee paid by the plaintiffs, was proper after considering the contentions raised by the first defendant of insufficiency of court fee paid by the plaintiffs on the suit claim and file a report. The Prothonotary and Senior Master referred the matter to the Taxing Master to hold an enquiry under Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (the said Act). The Taxing Master after hearing the parties came to a conclusion that as there are 8 separate claims in the suit, the plaintiffs will be liable to pay separately on each cause of action but subject to the maximum limit prescribed under the Act, i.e., Rs.3 lacs. This order is under challenge in the present Chamber Summons.

4. The admitted position is that the plaintiffs have paid the maximum amount of Rs.3 lacs. It is the contention of the applicants that the plaintiffs have come together to file this suit though each have sought separate relief. In other words, it is alleged that each plaintiff is claiming Rs.1 Crore as damages for the alleged defamation of each of them and therefore each plaintiff should pay court fees separately, subject to the maximum limit as if each plaintiff would have filed a separate suit and maximum limit of court fee of Rs. 3 lacs is not applicable. The applicants submit that the Taxing Master erred in invoking the provisions of Section 18 of the said Act read with proviso to Article 1 of Schedule I thereof. According to the applicants, the same does not apply to the facts of the present suit. Therefore, it is also submitted that individual claim of each plaintiff cannot be aggregated for the purpose of court fees and each claim has to be valued separately and accordingly court fees should be charged on the respective claim. It is the case of the applicants that each of the plaintiff is required to pay Rs.1,33,230/- as court fees and as there are 8 plaintiffs, they have to pay aggregate court fees of Rs.10,65,840/-. Out of that as Rs.3,00,000/- has been paid, there is deficit of Rs.7,65,840/-. If that is not paid, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The learned