(1.) PLAINTIFF is in revision against the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, tirupati in an unnumbered suit (R. R. No,2598 of 2007) filed for recovery of Rs. 6. 00 lakhs on the basis of ten promissory notes executed by defendant-respondent, whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge ordered for payment of Court fee separately on each of the ten promissory notes as per section 6 (3) (a) of A. P. Court Fees and Suits valuation Act granting time till 17. 7. 2007.
(2.) THE petitioner herein filed a suit before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6. 00 lakhs based on ten promissory notes executed by the defendant herein, out of which, two promissory notes are executed for Rs. 1. 00 lakh each and the remaining eight promissory notes are executed for Rs. 50,000/- each, alleging that the said amounts are borrowed by the defendant on the same day i. e. 27. 10. 2004 executing separate promissory notes. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is stated that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 6. 00 lakhs on 27. 2. 2004 for business purpose from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes of Rs. 1. 00 lakh each and eight promissory notes of Rs. 50,000/- each on the same day itself for the amounts borrowed according to his convenience for the taxation purposes and promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and delivered all the ten promissory notes after receiving the consideration. According to the petitioner, since the entire transaction is a single transaction happened and at one time on the same day and the cause of action being the same, he paid a court fee of Rs. 11,826/-under Section 20 of A. P. Court Fees and suits Valuation Act (for short 'the Act' ).
(3.) IT appears that the Office of the lower court took an objection that each promissory note constitute separate cause of action and, therefore, each one has to be valued separately and separate court fee has to be paid as per Section 6 (3) (a) of the Act on each of the promissory notes.