Unknown vs High Court Of Andhra Pradesh: ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2917 AP

       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                                  AND

                  HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS


                         C.M.A.No.861 of 2015



JUDGMENT: (per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)


      This appeal is filed questioning the order dated 20.02.2009

passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindupur returning the

suit O.S.No.6 of 2006 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C with a

direction to file separate suits on each promissory note in the

proper Court after making payment of the deficit court fee.

2.    As per the plaint, there are six promissory notes which were

executed by the defendants in favour of different lenders. These

lenders transferred the six promissory notes to the plaintiff for

collection.    The plaintiff filed a single suit for recovery of the

money against the borrowers/defendants. The defendant raised a

plea about the maintainability of a single suit; stating that the

cause of action under each promissory note is different. On this

issue of maintainability but without going into the other issues;
                                      2




the suit was returned on 20.02.2009 with a direction to file

separate suits on each promissory note after paying deficit court

fee in the proper Court. Questioning the same, the present CMA

is filed in 2009 June. It was numbered in 2015 after the office

objections   were   overruled   by       an   order   dated   24.03.2015.

Thereafter, it was listed on 07.12.2021; 04.08.2022; 21.03.2023,

27.03.2023

and on 29.03.2023. After perusing the affidavit filed

and comparing the addresses in the plaint; this Court held that

there was service/deemed service on the defendants but none

appeared for defendants.

3. At this stage, learned counsel said that his client is willing to

pay separate court fees and filed different/separate suits in the

proper Court. This was recorded.

4. Hence, the C.M.A. is disposed of (as appellant is willing to

comply with the impugned order) permitting the appellant to file

proper suits in the proper Courts as per the respective cause of

action by paying the deficit court fee as directed.

5. All the defences available to the defendants including the

delay and its consequences are left open for decision by the

respective Courts. Nothing is pronounced on the merits of the

matter.

6. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand

dismissed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU,J

_______________ V.SRINIVAS,J Date: 05.05.2023 KLP