( 1 ) THIS revision application has been placed before us pursuant to the order of reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19/3/1994 on the basis that conflicting views were expressed by the two learned Single Judges of this Court -one view was expressed by Justice S. H. Sheth in the judgment dated 16/9/1970 in civil Revision Application No. 470 of 1968 and the other view was expressed by Justice s. D. Dave in the judgment dated 18/9/1992 in Civil Revision Application No. 1176 of 1986 and other allied matters.

( 2 ) BEFORE narrating the aforesaid views, it is necessary to set out the facts of the present revision application. Respondent herein, M/s K. L. Patel, i. e. Kantibhai Lalubhai Patel, is a registered partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff ) which had entered into a contract with the State of Gujarat for construction of a road. The plaintiff filed special Civil Suit No. 231 of 1979 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (SD), nadiad. against the State of Gujarat for recovering the following amounts :-A Rs. 35,000. 00 Amount of security deposit either paid initially in cash by the plaintiff or deducted from R. A. Bills. B Rs. 75,000. 00 Loss of profit on the remaining work of Rs. 3. 00 lacs after 31/3/1976. C Rs. 60,000. 00 On account of enhanced rate for the work executed during extended period from 1/3/1974 to 31/3/1976. The plaintiff valued the suit for an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,70,000. 00 and paid court fee stamp on that basis. The court Fee Inspector filed Court Fee reference No. 1 of 1987 under Section 12 (3) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Court Fees act") mentioning that the plaintiff was required to pay the court fee stamp on each claim A, B and C separately. After hearing the plaintiff and the Court Fee Inspector, the learned Trial Judge rejected the reference vide his order dated 12/1/1988. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State of Gujarat filed the present revision application.

( 3 ) WHEN the matter reached hearing before the learned Single Judge on 19/3/1994, it appears that the petitioner-State of Gujarat relied on the judgment dated 16/9/1970 of Justice S. H. Sheth in civil Revision Application No. 470 of 1968 in support of its contention that the plaintiff was required to pay court fee stamp on each of the aforesaid claims separately, because the suit was filed for three different subjects and even if the suit is based on one contract, there may be more than one subjects in the same suit. On the other hand, the plaintiff appears to have relied on the decision dated 18. 9. 1992 of Justice S. D. Dave in Civil revision Application No. 1176 of 1986 and other allied matters in support of the contention that there was only one contract and only one cause of action giving rise to the aforesaid three claims and, therefore, the suit was not for three distinct subjects. but on the same subject and, therefore, the three claims were not required to be valued separately, but they were rightly aggregated by the plaintiff for paying the court fee stamp on the total suit claim of rs. 1,70,000. 00. The learned Single Judge was of the prima facie view that the view taken by justice S. D. Dave in the aforesaid judgment was contrary to the view taken hy Justice s. H. Sheth. particularly contrary to the following observations made bv Justice s. H. Sheth in the aforesaid decision dated 16/9/1970 :-"it may be that two or more distinct subjects may form the subject matter of a single decree. Two or more distinct subjects may also arise out of the same contract. " the mailer was accordingly referred to the Larger Bench and pursuant to the order passed by the Hon ble the Chief Justice, the mater is now placed before us.

( 4 ) MR. A. J. Desai, learned AGP has contended thai as per Ihe decision of Justice s. H. Sheth, there may be two or more distincl subjects arising out of the same contract and, therefore, the plaintiff in the prese