STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the matter pertained to a learned single judge, it came to be dealt with by the then the Honourable the Chief Justice Shri B.N, Kirpal on 17-6-1995. It was brought to the notice of the learned judge that there is difference of opinion among the two learned judges of the court on the question involved in the revision. One view is taken by our learned brother B.C. Patel, J. and that has been reported in 1995 (1) GLH 512. it is a case between State of Gujarat Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra. Another view is taken by our learned brother Y.B. Bhatt, J. in R.C. Sharma vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 (1) GLH 19 (UJ).

(2.) The question relates to a money suit filed by the bank or a creditor against a debtor for recovery of loan advanced. So far as statutory material is concerned, Sec. 18 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1859 has to be looked at. It deals with multifarious suits. Where a suit is found to be multifarious, the amount of court-fee chargable shall be the aggregate amount of fees to which the plaint in suits embracing separately each of such subjects would be liable under this act. So far, there cannot be any problem.

(3.) In order to understand the concept of multifarious suits, one has to turn to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. Multifariousness may arise as per the provisions of Orders 1 and 2 of the said code, when parties and cause of action have been wrongly shown together. In the question before us, there is no such situation as to joinder of wrong parties.