Judgment 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 Cuddapah, Chittoor, Bellary and Anantapur, were in pursuance of one and the same parent contract and formed part of the same transaction, and therefore would not 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 Cuddapah,Chittor, Bellary, Anatapur 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 distinct 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. Lakshminarayana Chettiar1, 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 be 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 under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was given will not show that there was only one transaction. The fact that only one notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was given will not show that there was only one transaction. Sometimes any number of claims against a person (here the Government) may be consolidated in one notice, where only one suit is intended to be filed as here. It may be noticed that, even when appointing 10 clerks in an office newly started 10 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. V. S. ----- Petition dismissed.