Back
1994 Supreme(Guj) 160
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.C.PATEL
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA - Respondent
C.R.A. 1503 of 1993
Decided On : 06/17/1994
Headnote:Bombay Court Fees Act, 1957 - Sec. 18 - Multifarious Suits - Computation of court fee - Three separate and district loans advanced by Bank - In recovery suit all three loans clubbed - Court fee calculated on different loan amount - Held, cause of action arises out of different contracts executed on different dates - Court fee can be levied separately as envisaged under section 18.
In the instant case, causes of action are different and it is clear that the plaintiff itself has drafted the plaint accordingly. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be observed that if for different types of loan on different dates, different properties were mortgaged by the defendant with the Bank on different dates with different rate of interest, it cannot be said that cause of action is one. In the instant case looking to the three independent accounts, subjects are quite independent of each other. Looking to the nature of different accounts, they do not arise out of or relate to the same set of facts or circumstances which may be present in a case arising out of same cause of action. It becomes very clear that as causes of action arises out of different contracts executed on different dates and merely they have been clubbed together it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that Court fees cannot be levied as provided under sec.18 of the Act. Really speaking, the Court ought to have levied the Court fees after evaluating 3 subject matters separately.
[Paras 11 & 13]
( 1 ) STATE of Gujarat has preferred this Revision Application against the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amreli on 3- 10-1992 on Court Fee Reference No. 4 of 1992 in Special Civil Suit No. 95 of 1989.
( 2 ) FEW facts relevant for the purpose of determining the issue in question are as under : 2. 1 Opponent No. 1 herein State Bank of Saurashtra filed a Special civil Suit No. 95 of 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, amreli against the opponent No. 2 herein Karshanbhai Manjibhai Dobaria for recovery of Rs. 35,933. 00 with interest at the rate of 16% p. a. and cost on 26-9-1989. Opponent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) valued the suit at Rs. 35,933. 00 for the purpose of Court Fees. 2. 2 In the plaint, in paragraph 3, it is averred that the opponent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has, for agricultural purpose, submitted an application for cash credit facilities and cash credit facility of Rs. 1,985. 00 was sanctioned by the plaintiff on 14-6-1987. Some property was mortgaged against this facility. Amount was to be paid with interest at 12% p. a. within a period of one year. 2. 3 Again, on 6-7-1988, defendant, by executing another document creating charge on property, obtained Mid-Term Loan facilities to the tune of Rs. 2,375. 00 and Rs. 2,250. 00 have been sanctioned at interest of 11% p. a. and the said amount was to be repaid within a period of 3 years. 2. 4 Again on 10-7-1981, defendant executed another document for creating charge on property in favour of plaintiff and additional cash credit facility of Rs. 5,000. 00 was granted by plaintiff which was required to be repaid with interest at 15% p. a. 2. 5 On 15-4-1982, defendant executed further agreement and obtained further cash credit facility of Rs. 6,000. 00 from plaintiff. 2. 6 On 11-1-1983, defendant executed another agreement and midterm loan of Rs. 5,000. 00 have been sanctioned by plaintiff which was repayable with interest at 15% p. a. 2. 7 Thus, on different dates, plaintiff granted three different facilities, known as : Cash Credit, Mid-term and Term loan. For these three facilities, defendant executed different agreements for different properties in favour of plaintiff, i. e. . Survey No. 65/1 admeasuring 1 Acre 26 Gunthas, survey No. 65/2 admeasuring 5 Acres and 22 Gunthas, Survey No. 155 admeasuring 2 Acres and 32 Gunthas, Survey No. 156 admeasuring 1 acre and 32 Gunthas situated at village Barpatoli and Survey No. 1 admeasuring 16 Acres situated at village Sarvda. Thus it is clear that on different dates, for obtaining different facilities of different nature at different rate of interest, charge has been created over different properties. 2. 8 In para 11 of the plaint, it has been specifically mentioned that rs. 15,280/- is outstanding in the account of the defendant in Cash credit Account with interest till 30-9-1989; Rs. 7,316. 00 is outstanding in the account of the defendant in the Mid-term Loan Account till 30-9- 1989 and Rs. 13,499. 00 is outstanding in the Term Loan Account with interest till 30-9-1989.
( 3 ) INSPECTING Officer, Court Fees, Bhavnagar, submitted a report under Sec. 12 (3) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 pointing out that in all, the Court Fees payable is Rs. 2,660. 00. as shown in the table below : transaction of Accounts/ Total Amount Court Fees loan payable 1. C. C. A. 15,218/- 1,135/- 2. M. T. A. 7,216/- 530/- 3. A. T. L. 13,499/- 995/- total Court Fees 2,660/- less Court Fees paid 2,080/- deficit Court Fees 580/- learned Judge rejected the reference by order dated 3-10-1992.
( 4 ) SECTION 18 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads 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 memoranda of appeal in suits embracing separately each of such subjects would be l
