IMPORTANT POINT
In multifarious suits involving multiple plaintiffs with independent claims, each plaintiff must pay separate court fees as per Sec. 18 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, regardless of the claims arising from a common transaction.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. By praecipe dtd. 30/8/2023 filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, this suit was circulated as the Registry had raised certain objections on 19/5/2023 and one of the objections raised was that separate Court Fees for separate claim in respect of each of the Plaintiffs claim-wise was to be paid.

2. When the matter was listed on 5/9/2023, following order was passed:-

"1. This Summary Suit has been circulated on lodging number as one of the objections raised by the Registry is that each of the plaintiffs have to pay separate Court fees for separate claims raised in the suit. Mr.Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs, relies upon decisions of this Court under Sec. 18 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act with respect to multifarious suits. For the sake of convenience, the said Sec. is quoted as under :

"18. Multifarious suits Where a suit embraces two or more distinct subjects, the plaint or memorandum of Appeal shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees to which the plaints or memorandum of Appeal in suits embracing separately each of such subjects would be liable under this Act. Nothing in the former part of this Sec. shall be deemed to affect the powers conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Schedule I, Order II, Rule 6."

2. Mr.Jagtiani would submit that under proviso to Article 1 to Schedule I, the maximum Court fees that could be leviable on any plaint or memorandum of appeal would be Rs.3,00,000.00. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors. vs. S.S.Printers and Ors. and a more recent decision of this Court in the case of Maldar Barrels Private Ltd. vs. Pearson Drums and Barrels Pvt. Ltd. in support. Mr.Jagtiani fairly refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Heena Narendra Patel (In the matter between) Pushpaben Vishwambarlal Khetan and Ors. vs. Heena Narendra Patel and Ors., which he submits was a case where there were a number of Plaintiffs who had sued the Defendants for defamation, and this Court had observed that each of the Plaintiff had to prove that the Defendants had defamed each of the Plaintiff and each of the Plaintiff had also to justify the amount of damages claimed, and therefore, would have to pay separate Court fees. He would, however, submit that the said case pertains to separate cause of action in the case of defamation and is distinguishable from the facts of this case. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that paragraph 10 of the said decision also records that the said decision is restricted only to a suit for defamation and points out that the said paragraph clearly records that in a suit for breach of contract, perhaps the situation might be different. For the sake of ready reference, paragraph 10 of the said order is usefully quoted as under :

"10. Under Order 1 Rule 1 r/w Order 2 Rule 3, the plaintiffs were justified in uniting in the same suit, their independent causes of action against the same defendant. Therefore there is no harm with the plaintiffs filing the suit together. Each of the plaintiff is alleging defamation against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 arising out of the notice dated 22 nd October 2005 addressed by the Defendant No.2 on instructions from Defendant No.1. Each plaintiffs, therefore, even if act of the defendants is common against each of the plaintiff, has to prove that by lodging the complaint dated 22 nd October 2005, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have defamed each of the plaintiff and each of the plaintiff also has to justify the amount of Rs.1.00 Crore claimed. In other words, each plaintiff has to not only establish liability of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to each one of them, but also should establish the quantum with respect to each one of them. It is therefore clear from the plaint that the 7 surviving plaintiffs could have filed 7 separate suit against the defendants without necessity to file one comprehensive suit. Moreover, even if the evidence could be commo