Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1980 (BOM)

Nandkumar Khairam Kalati v. Atlantic Apparels

2023-10-05

ABHAY AHUJA

body2023
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 common for the defendants as against of the plaintiffs, the evidence for each of the plaintiff will have to be separate, because this is a suit for defamation. In a suit for breach of contract, perhaps the situation might be different. As it is a suit for defamation even if each of the plaintiff had filed separate suits, they were likely to be not consolidated because in a defamation action, each plaintiff will have to prove that the act of the defendant defamed them and the quantum of damages claimed." 3. As it is a suit for defamation even if each of the plaintiff had filed separate suits, they were likely to be not consolidated because in a defamation action, each plaintiff will have to prove that the act of the defendant defamed them and the quantum of damages claimed." 3. On a query from the Court as to whether there are decisions other than the case of defamation where multiple plaintiffs have sued for different causes of action, Mr.Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel, seeks some time to revert on the same. At his request, list on 12/9/2023 at 2.30 p.m." 3. Thereafter, on 12/9/2023, Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel has appeared and reiterated the submissions made earlier. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that as the said suit arose from the same cause of action and as the claims also arose from a composite transaction, the aggregate amount of fees to which the plaint in suits embracing each subject separately as per Sec. 18 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, would not be payable, in view of the maximum Court Fees as prescribed in Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. Learned Senior Counsel seeks to rely upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors Vs. SS Printers and Ors,Manu/MH/0580/1995. and also the decision of this Court in the case of Maldar Barrels Private Ltd. Vs. Pearson Drums and Barrels Pvt. Ltd.,Commercial Summary Suit (L) No. 6044 of 2022 dtd. 13/7/2022. in support of his contentions. 4. Learned Senior Counsel had also fairly referred to the decision of this Court in the case Heena Narendra Patel (in the matter between Pushpaben Vishwambarlal Khetan and ors. Vs. Heena Narendra Patel and Ors.),[Chamber Summons No. 803 of 2014 in Suit No. 3474 of 2005 dtd. 13/7/2022. in support of his contentions. 4. Learned Senior Counsel had also fairly referred to the decision of this Court in the case Heena Narendra Patel (in the matter between Pushpaben Vishwambarlal Khetan and ors. Vs. Heena Narendra Patel and Ors.),[Chamber Summons No. 803 of 2014 in Suit No. 3474 of 2005 dtd. 2/2/2015.] but sought to distinguish the said decision from the facts of the case at hand by submitting that, although that was a case where a number of Plaintiffs who had sued the same Defendants, had filed the suit for defamation and on the basis that each of the Plaintiffs had to prove that the Defendants had defamed each of them and also to justify the amount of the damages claimed, this Court (Coram : K.R.Shriram, J.) had come to a conclusion that though one suit could be filed by the Plaintiffs but each of the Plaintiffs would have to pay separate court fees, however the Court had also observed that in a suit for breach of contract, perhaps the situation might be different. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that since the suit in the present case involves amounts advanced by different members of Kalati family and by Plaintiffs No.10 to 12, and repayment of which claimed herein is in the nature of a composite transaction wherein at the request of the Defendant No.2, acting as partner of Defendant No.1 firm, the Plaintiff No.1 as eldest member of the Kalati family agreed to help out the Defendants and advanced monies to the Defendants through the various family members of the Kalati family and entities owned/ controlled by them as confirmed by the conduct of the Defendants wherein in emails addressed to Plaintiff No.2, the Defendants had requested not to deposit the cheques issued by the Defendants on the same day in name of all the Plaintiffs for the amounts due and payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs, the maximum Court fee leviable would be Rs.3,00,000.00. 5. Since the Court had requested learned Senior Counsel to see if there were any other decisions other than the decision dealing with a case of defamation, where multiple Plaintiffs had sued the same Defendant for different causes of action and paid only a maximum Court Fee of Rs.3.00lacs, pursuant to Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, on the 5/9/2023, learned Senior Counsel had sought some time. 6. On 12/9/2023, when this matter was listed, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that although there are decisions similar to the decisions in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors Vs. SS Printers and Ors (supra) and Maldar Barrels Private Ltd. Vs. Pearson Drums and Barrels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), however he could not lay his hands upon any other contra decision other than Heena Narendra Patel (in the matter between Pushpaben Vishwambarlal Khetan and ors.) Vs. Heena Narendra Patel and Ors.) supra which he submits is distinguishable. 7. Accordingly, this Court had on 12/9/2023 concluded the arguments and closed the matter for orders. 8. I have heard Mr.Haresh Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel and considered the learned Senior Counsel's submissions as well as the decisions referred to above. 9. It is not in dispute that in the present case, there are a number of Plaintiffs, who are separate and distinct individuals, one of which is also a private limited company, though related, have sought to file this suit as a summary suit under Rule 1 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the "CPC") against the same Defendants for claiming different amounts that were purportedly lent by the same Defendant No.1. In the Plaint it is stated that Plaintiff No.1 is the father of Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and grandfather of Plaintiffs No. 5,6,8 and 9. Plaintiff No. 4 is the wife of the Plaintiff No.2 and daughter in law of Plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiffs No. 2 and 4 are the parents of Plaintiffs No. 6 and 9. Plaintiff No. 7 is the wife of Plaintiff No. 3 and daughter in law of Plaintiff No.1. The Plaintiffs No. 3 and 7 are the parents of Plaintiffs No. 5 and 8. Plaintiff No. 8 is a minor and is represented by his father, who is his natural guardian, the Plaintiff No.3. Plaintiff No.10 is a private limited company, of which statedly the Plaintiff No. 1 is a Chairman and Plaintiffs No. 2 to 9 are the shareholders. Plaintiff No. 11 is the proprietorship concern of Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No. 12 is the proprietorship concern of Plaintiff No. 4. Plaintiffs No. 10 to 12 are statedly entities owned and controlled by the Plaintiffs. It is stated that the Kalati family is in the business of real estate including development, construction of buildings and rental of properties. Plaintiff No. 11 is the proprietorship concern of Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No. 12 is the proprietorship concern of Plaintiff No. 4. Plaintiffs No. 10 to 12 are statedly entities owned and controlled by the Plaintiffs. It is stated that the Kalati family is in the business of real estate including development, construction of buildings and rental of properties. That Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and Defendants No. 2 and 3 were at the relevant time the partners of the Defendant No. 1-firm. Defendant No. 3 is the son of Defendant No.2. It is stated that the Defendant No. 1-firm is in the business of manufacture and sale of Apparel. That Defendant No. 2 is also engaged in other businesses including running a production studio known as Gemini Studio in Andheri, Mumbai. 10. It is stated in the plaint that the Plaintiffs have vide Powers of Attorney dtd. 11/4/2023 authorised the Plaintiffs No. 2 and 6, severally to file the suit on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff No. 10 has vide Board Resolution dtd. 1/4/2023 authorised Plaintiffs No. 2 and 6, who are Directors of Plaintiff No. 10, severally to institute the suit on behalf of Plaintiff No. 10. 11. The facts, briefly stated, are that the Defendant No.2 who was introduced to the Plaintiff No.1 through a common friend, over a period of time, started seeking financial assistance from Plaintiff No. 1 for meeting short term capital requirements of his businesses including Defendant No. 1-firm which were advanced by Plaintiff No.1 at interest of 15% per annum. Due to the trust developed over some time, the other Plaintiffs being related to Plaintiff No.1, also advanced monies to the Defendant No. 1 on interest. It is stated in the Plaint that Plaintiff No. 1, as the eldest member of the Kalati family was entrusted by the other Plaintiffs with their funds and when Defendant No. 2 requested Plaintiff No. 1 to give financial assistance, Plaintiff No. 1 would himself and at times through his other family members and other entities lend money to the Defendants. 12. It is stated that in the past, the Defendants would regularly pay interest and repay the principal amounts without the Plaintiffs having to call upon the Defendants to repay such amounts. Therefore, even though subsequent advances were being made, no security was taken by the Plaintiffs from the Defendants. 13. 12. It is stated that in the past, the Defendants would regularly pay interest and repay the principal amounts without the Plaintiffs having to call upon the Defendants to repay such amounts. Therefore, even though subsequent advances were being made, no security was taken by the Plaintiffs from the Defendants. 13. In paragraph 8, it is stated that the Plaintiffs No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 12 had also drawn up balance confirmation statements reflecting the principal amounts due and owing to these Plaintiffs from the Defendant No.1 firm as on 31/3/2014, which balance confirmation statements statedly have been received by the Defendant No.1 firm, purportedly endorsed by Defendant No.2 as partner of the firm. That, similar confirmation statements have been drawn up for the year ending 31/3/2015. However, for the year ending 31/3/2016, the Defendant No. 2 did not issue any balance confirmation statement and gave evasive responses and although earlier the firm was regularly paying the interest with some occasional and not very significant delays, however, since 2016-2017, the Defendants had become irregular in the interest payments and in the year 2018-2019, paid some minimal amounts towards part payment of accumulated interest due and payable to the Plaintiffs. That, the last payment towards interest was stated to be made by the Defendant on 19/12/2019. It has been stated that thereafter, there were discussions and meetings where the Plaintiffs' apprehensions were expressed to the Defendant No. 2 and thereafter, the Defendant No. 1 through Defendant No. 2 issued cheques for the principal amount and interest accrued thereon in the name of the Plaintiffs. However, when the time to deposit those cheques came, the Defendant No. 2 would request the Plaintiffs not to deposit those cheques due to non availability of funds. It is stated that this request kept coming from time to time and on 28/6/2020 Defendants issued to the Plaintiffs cheques in the name of each of the Plaintiffs for different amounts totaling to Rs. 14,29,50,000/-, copies whereof have been annexed as Exhibits J1 to J18 to the Plaint. However, closer to the expiry of those cheques Defendant No. 1 requested the Plaintiffs not to deposit the cheques as the firm did not have sufficient funds to honour them and therefore the said cheques were not deposited. 14,29,50,000/-, copies whereof have been annexed as Exhibits J1 to J18 to the Plaint. However, closer to the expiry of those cheques Defendant No. 1 requested the Plaintiffs not to deposit the cheques as the firm did not have sufficient funds to honour them and therefore the said cheques were not deposited. The details of each of those cheques issued to each of the Plaintiffs is mentioned in paragraph 18 of the Plaint. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the Defendants, which was also replied to, but since no payment was made, this suit which is sought to be filed as a summary suit under Order 37 of the CPC inter alia on the basis of the cheques that were issued by the Defendants to each of the Plaintiffs came to be filed. In paragraph 33, the Plaintiffs have set out against the name of each Plaintiff the principal amount due and payable alongwith interest for which cheques were issued and also further interest alongwith the total amount due and payable by the Defendants to each of the Plaintiffs name wise. 14. In paragraph 31, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, amounts advanced by different members of Kalati family and by Plaintiffs no.10 to 12, repayment of which is claimed herein is in the nature of a composite transaction wherein at the request of the Defendant No.2, acting as partner of Defendant No.1 firm, the Plaintiff No.1 as eldest member of the Kalati family agreed to help out the Defendants and advanced monies to the Defendants through the various family members of the Kalati family and entities owned/controlled by them. In paragraph 36 of the Plaint, it has been submitted that the value of the subject matter in the suit is Rs.18,25,86,250.00 and accordingly a maximum court fees of Rs.3.00 lacs has been paid. In paragraph 38, it has been stated that the suit claim is not barred by limitation and the Defendants have confirmed and admitted their liability and have undertaken to repay the amount borrowed and the accrued interest thereon by issuing cheques in favour of the Plaintiffs. 15. In paragraph 38, it has been stated that the suit claim is not barred by limitation and the Defendants have confirmed and admitted their liability and have undertaken to repay the amount borrowed and the accrued interest thereon by issuing cheques in favour of the Plaintiffs. 15. From the above and particularly from the table at paragraph 33 as well as the particulars of claim at Exhibit N to the plaint, where the Plaintiffs have clearly set out against the name of each Plaintiff the principal amount due and payable alongwith interest for which cheques were issued and also further interest alongwith total amount due and payable by the Defendants to each of the Plaintiffs name wise, it emerges that each of the Plaintiffs have an independent claim against the Defendants for a separate and distinct amount purportedly advanced to the Defendant No.1 firm. The table at page 33 clearly indicates the separate and distinct claim of each of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants. Even the particulars of claim at page 188 clearly indicates the principal amounts alongwith respective amounts of interest at the rate of 15% per annum that each of the Plaintiffs have claimed against the Defendants. The cheques that had been issued by the Defendants have also been issued in the name of the respective Plaintiffs reflecting the amounts purportedly due to each of them. In other words, each of the Plaintiffs will have to prove their claim though against the same Defendant. 16. Rule 1 of Order I of the CPC provides as to who may be joined as Plaintiffs. It is provided that all persons may be joined in one suit as Plaintiffs where any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. Under Rule 3 of Order I, it is also provided as to who may be joined as Defendants. Under Rule 3 of Order I, it is also provided as to who may be joined as Defendants. It is provided that all persons maybe joined in one suit as Defendants where any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such person, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise. 17. Under Rule 3 of Order II it is provided that a Plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendant jointly; and any Plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same Defendant or the same Defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit and where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or the value of the aggregate subject matters at the date of instituting the suit. 18. Considering the above facts disclosed in the Plaint, Plaintiffs may be justified in jointly filing the suit for their independent causes of action against the same Defendants under Order I Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Order II Rule 3, for an aggregate amount of the claim of Rs. 18,25,86,250/-, however each claim of principal and corresponding interest as set out in paragraph 33 as well as in the particulars of claim at Exhibit "N" would be a separate and distinct claim or subject matter. Each of the Plaintiffs would have to individually prove his or her or its claim against the Defendants, even if the cause of action would be similar and even if repayment is claimed purportedly as a composite transaction on the basis that at the request of the Defendant No.2 acting as partner of Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff No.1, as eldest member of Kalati family agreed to help out the Defendants and advanced monies to the Defendants through various family members and entities owned and controlled by them. Each Plaintiff would have to respectively establish the liability of the Defendants, establish the quantum (principal as well as corresponding interest) due from the Defendants, although some common questions of fact may arise and even though some of the evidence may be common. Therefore, although a consolidated suit can be filed, each of the Plaintiffs will have to prove their case and the liability of the Defendant individually. 19. Sec. 18 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 deals with multifarious suits. It provides that where a suit embraces of two or more distinct subjects, the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees to which the plaint or memorandum of appeal in suits embracing separately each of such subjects would be liable under the Act. Therefore, even if each of the separate subjects are clubbed in one suit, court fees would be payable separately on each separate subject. In my view, the claim of each of the Plaintiffs is distinct and separate subject. Therefore, each of the Plaintiffs will have to pay separate Court Fees in respect of each of their claims. 20. This Court in the case of Heena Narendra Patel (in the matter between Pushpaben Vishwambarlal Khetan and ors. Vs. Heena Narendra Patel and Ors.) (supra) has very succinctly dealt with this issue. After considering Sec. 18 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act as well as Order I Rule 1 read with Order I Rule 3 of the CPC and also considering the decisions in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors Vs. SS Printers and Ors (supra) as well as an unreported judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Trinity Petro-Film Pvt. Ltd.,[Appeal No. 1026 of 2003 in SS 165 of 2002 dtd. 16/12/2003.]. this Court observed that distinct subjects used in Sec. 18 should be read and understood as subject matters which are distinct but can be clubbed together in a single suit. 16/12/2003.]. this Court observed that distinct subjects used in Sec. 18 should be read and understood as subject matters which are distinct but can be clubbed together in a single suit. That it may be convenient for all the Plaintiffs claiming for similar reliefs on a similar cause of action to combine and file a suit and in such a case it is possible to avoid multiplicity of a suit by combining the causes of action without offending the provisions of the CPC, but this Court found it difficult to see how distinct causes of action which each Plaintiff had, could be one subject within the meaning of Sec. 18. It was held that the Plaintiffs were seeking eight independent decrees of 1 Cr. each against Defendants No. 1 and 2 and therefore, each of the Plaintiffs would have to pay separate amounts of maximum court fees, as if each of the Plaintiffs had filed an independent action. 21. Paragraphs 9 to 14 of the said decision are relevant and are usefully quoted as under:- "9. To decide this issue, let us reproduce Sec. 18 and Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. "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." 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 dtd. 22/10/2005 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 dtd. 22/10/2005, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 arising out of the notice dtd. 22/10/2005 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 dtd. 22/10/2005, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have defamed each of the plaintiff and each of other 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 No.1 and 2 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 common for the defendants as against of the plaintiffs, the evidence for each of the plaintiff will have to be separate, because this is a suit for defamation. In a suit for breach of contract, perhaps the situation might be different. As it is a suit for defamation even if each of the plaintiff had filed separate suits, they were likely to be not consolidated because in a defamation action, each plaintiff will have to prove that the act of the defendant defamed them and the quantum of damages claimed. 11. The Taxing Master has given his conclusion based on two judgments relied upon by the plaintiff, one in the matter of Syndicate Bank Vs. M/s S. S. Printers and Ors. and the other an unreported judgment in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Trinity Petro-Film Pvt. Ltd. In both the matters, there was one plaintiff who combined various causes of action and therefore, it was held that court fees was required to be assessed on each subject separately and then the aggregate amount of court fees be charged on the plaint subject to maximum prescribed in proviso to Article 1 of Schedule I. Both the judgments are not applicable to the present cae in as much as the present suit is filed by 8 different plaintiffs (now reduced to 7) claiming each one to be paid Rs.1.00 Crore against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for complaining to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Sec. 18 relates to the court fees payable in respect of multifarious suits. 1 and 2 for complaining to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Sec. 18 relates to the court fees payable in respect of multifarious suits. In the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, the words "subject" has not been defined. In Sec. 8 and Sec. 11 of the said Act, which relates to enquiry as to valuation of suits and costs of inquiry of valuation and refund of excess fees respectively, the words used are "subject matter of any suit". In Sec. 15 also the words used are "subject matter of the suit". It is not, therefore clear whether the word "subject, here means and includes subject matter or it means something else. 12. At the same time, I am inclined to accept the view that the term "distinct subjects" used in Sec. 18 should be read and understood as subject matters as are distinct but which can be clubbed together in a single suit. The intention of Sec. 18 seems to be provided for suits which involved multifariousness and which do not go against the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure such as misjoinder of causes of action. 13. Whether the items involved in the suit are distinct subjects or one and the same subject may also be decided by the facts as to whether, if one of the plaintiff alone had filed the suit and decree passed therein in favour of such plaintiff, would it ennure to the benefit of the rest of the parties who have not been parties to the suit. 14. It may be convenient for all the plaintiffs claiming for similar relief on a similar cause of action to combine and file a suit. In such case it is possible to avoid multiplicity of suits by combining causes of action and parties without offending the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time I find it difficult to see how distinct causes of action which each plaintiff has can be one subject even within the meaning of Sec. 18. In reality, the plaintiffs are seeking 8 independent decrees of Rs.1.00 Crore each against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. In my view each of the plaintiffs will have to pay separate amounts of maximum court fees as if each of the plaintiff has filed an independent action. In reality, the plaintiffs are seeking 8 independent decrees of Rs.1.00 Crore each against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. In my view each of the plaintiffs will have to pay separate amounts of maximum court fees as if each of the plaintiff has filed an independent action. I find it difficult to see how distinct causes of action that each plaintiff independently has can ever be distinct subjects within the meaning of Sec. 18. Sec. 18 in my view takes into account a situation where there is one plaintiff who filed a suit embracing two or more subjects not may plaintiffs who have come together and filed a suit for defamation claiming separate damages." 22. In the facts of the present case as well, as can be seen, each of the Plaintiffs are, in effect, respectively seeking independent decrees corresponding to their respective amounts as mentioned in the particulars of claim even though a consolidated amount is mentioned in the prayer clause. Therefore, each of the Plaintiffs will have to pay separate amount of maximum court fees as if each of the Plaintiffs has filed an independent action. Distinct causes of action that each of the Plaintiffs has against the Defendants is an independent action. 23. Mr. Jagtiani's submission with respect to the observation in paragraph 10 in the case of Heena Narendra Patel (in the matter between Pushpaben Vishwambarlal Khetan and ors. Vs. Heena Narendra Patel and Ors.) (supra) that in a suit for breach of contract, perhaps the situation might be different, in my view, would not assist his case. That observation of my learned Brother was in the context of evidence to be led in a case of defamation as against a case of a breach of contract when it was observed that even if the evidence could be common for the Defendants, the evidence of each of the Plaintiffs would have to be separate in a suit for defamation, meaning thereby that in a suit for breach of contract the Defendants as well as the Plaintiffs may have to lead separate evidence. In any event, the said observation would certainly not have any bearing on the finding that in reality since the Plaintiffs were seeking eight independent decrees of 1 Cr. In any event, the said observation would certainly not have any bearing on the finding that in reality since the Plaintiffs were seeking eight independent decrees of 1 Cr. each against Defendants No. 1 and 2, the Court had held that each of the Plaintiffs would have to pay separate amounts of maximum court fees as if each of the Plaintiffs has filed an independent action. 24. In view of the above discussion, the decisions of this Court in the case of Syndicate Bank and Ors Vs. SS Printers and Ors (supra) and Maldar Barrels Private Ltd. Vs. Pearson Drums and Barrels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) being clearly distinguishable would not be of any assistance to the case of the Plaintiffs. They do not involve a case of joinder of Plaintiffs seeking a decree against common Defendants. 25. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot by filing one suit, avoid paying Court Fees that they would be liable to pay in the event they had filed separate suits. This is not a case where the Court Fees can be capped at Rs.3.00 lacs, which the Plaintiffs have already paid at the time of institution of the Suit. The Plaintiffs are, therefore, directed to pay the balance Court Fees within a period of four weeks. Praecipe accordingly stands disposed. 26. Needless to say, that any observation(s) on the merits of the dispute between the parties is only to consider this praecipe/application which shall not influence consideration of the other objection(s) or the trial or disposal of the suit which is to be considered, tried and decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by the said observation(s).