AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government
Pleader, and see no reason to interfere, in the circumstances proved. Though Mr. Ramaswami Mudaliar, learned counsel for the petitioners,
alleged that the four separate orders, placed by the Collector of North Arcot with the petitioners for supply of wheat to Cuddappah, Chittoor,
Bellary and Anantapur, were in pursuance of one and the same parent contract and formed part of"" the same transaction, and therefore would fall
within the mischief of Section 17 of the Court-fees Act, he was unable to show the parent contract entered into with the Collector of North Arcot
by the petitioners under which they agreed to supply wheat to Cuddappah, Chittoor, Bellary, Anantapur and any other place indicated by him from
time to time.
As the learned Government Pleader pointed out, there was no reference in the plaint to any such parent contract. So we are left with the fact
that there were only four separate and distinct proceedings of the Collector for the supply to the four districts concerned; if so, each of them would
be a dig, tinct subject, being a distinct transaction, with a distinct cause of action, - though the contracting parties were the same. If that is so, the
Full Bench ruling In Re: D. Lakshminarayana Chettiar and Another, will not help the petitioners as urged by Mr. V. M. R. Mudaliar.
It was held in that ruling that distinct subjects in Section 17 of the Court-fees Act mean distinct causes of action in respect of which separate
suits should be filed but for the enabling provisions allowing them to he clubbed up in one suit, and that the distinctness or identity of the cause of
action is the only criterion for the applicability of the section. In the absence of a parent contract with the Collector, forming a basis for a common
cause of action for the claim in all these four cases, Section 17 of the Court-fees Act will apply, as there are four distinct subjects, and four
different causes of action.
The fact that only one notice u/s 80, C. P. C. was given will not show that there was only one transaction. Sometimes any number of claims
against a person (here, the Government) may be con--solidated in one notice, where only one suit is intended to be filed as here. It may be noticed
that, even when appointing ten clerks in an office newly started, ten orders are not always issued, but often only one order including them all. For
all the above reasons, the lower Court''s order is correct and is upheld. Two months time from today is given to the petitioners for paying the
deficit court-fee. This civil revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, but, in the peculiar circumstances, without costs.