BANK OF INDIA BHAVNAGAR Vs. PRAVINSINH BHUVABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question involved in this Revision Application is regarding the interpretation of Sec. 18 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, (for short 'Act') and in particular, what is the meaning of the phrase 'distinct subjects' appearing in the said section ? To state the above question on the basis of the relevant concrete facts of this case, the same is - "Whether in a money suit filed by the Bank against its principal borrower for the recovery of the loan amount in respect of one loan only, where the guarantors are also incidentally joined as parties in the alternative praying to saddle them with the joint and several liabilities, the plaintiff- Bank, over and above the normal Court fees which it is required to pay, is also further required to pay additional Court fees qua the claim against each of the guarantors and/or qua the different reliefs prayed for the enforcement of the securities available to the Bank ?"

(2.) The fact situation under which the above question arises is to the effect that - The opponent-plaintiff Bank of India at Bhavnagar, instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 139 of 1992 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar, for recovering Rs. 91,176-96 (Rupees ninety- one thousand, one hundred seventy-six and ninety-six ps. only) from one Pravinsinhji Bhavubha in respect of a term loan granted to him and other three defendants, who incidentally became guarantors in respect of the said loan amount. It is the case of the plaintiff-Bank that the defendant No. 1 wanted to purchase a pick-up van for his business purpose and accordingly he applied to the plaintiff-Bank for loan in the necessary amount. Accordingly, the loan amount of Rs. 69,000.00 (Rupees sixty-nine thousand) as term loan was advanced on 16-12-1992 with the condition that the defendant No. 1 would repay the same in regular installments with interest 12% per annum, to be compounded with the quarterly rests. Towards the satisfaction of the said loan transaction, the defendant No. 1 also furnished two guarantors, who in turn executed Guarantee documents in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. In the course of time, as the defendant No. 1 did not repay the loan amount by instalments, as agreed upon, the plaintiff-Bank ultimately filed a suit for recovering in all Rs. 91,176-96 ps. together with running interest and costs and also to enforce the securities including the mortgage executed by one of the guarantors, viz., Rupsing Bhavubha Gohil. It further appears that on examining the record of the case, the Court fees Inspector, Bhavnagar, found that the valuation of the suit was not properly made as the Court fees worth Rs. 3,220.00 paid by the plaintiff on the plaint was ex-fade insufficient. According to the Inspecting Officer, the plaintiff was also liable to pay the Court fees stamp qua each of the defendants, meaning thereby the plaintiff was liable to pay the Court fees totalling Rs. 9,660.00. On the basis of this finding, the Court fees Inspectors filed a Court fees Reference No. 59 of 1992 in the Court of learned Second Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar, who in his turn accepted the same after hearing both the sides. By his order dated 24-2-1993, the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fees in all amounting to Rs. 9,660.00 (deducting the Court fees amounting Rs. 3,220.00 already paid) within ten days from the date of the order, failing which, the suit shall be dismissed. It is this order granting the Reference, which has been challenged before this Court by the plaintiff-Bank.

(3.) Mr. J. T. Trivedi, the learned Advocate for the applicant-Bank, while challenging the impugned order submitted that the same was ex-fade misconceived and illegal. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that merely because the guarantors were joined as a party and it was prayed that the joint and several decree be passed against each one of them and further merely because there were several reliefs prayed, over and above the money decree for the enforcement of the security available to the Bank, that by itself was no ground to tax the Court fees on each count.