In Re: Udhab Chandra Pal and Others

Madan, J.—This matter arises from a proceeding u/s 145, Criminal P.C., in respect of about three thousand bighas of diara land. The parties were the Suksena Estate or its representatives as first party, and three persons described as head manager and managers of the Mathurapore Estate Zamindari Company as second party. The proceedings were instituted on 21st February 1935, and after a protracted hearing were decided in favour of the first party on 28th March 1936. A reference by the Sessions Judge to this Court was discharged on 24th August 1936. There is now a further reference by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the trying Magistrate has not awarded costs to the successful party. The learned Sessions Judge has recommended that the sum of Rs. 858-7-0 should be allowed as costs. The learned Magistrate had discretion to award costs, and he has given no reason for not exercising that discretion in favour of the first party who was declared to be in actual possession of the land after a lengthy trial. It is therefore proper that the first party should be given a reasonable amount of costs. The claim of the first party is as follows:

Rs. a. p. 1. Pleaders and Mukhtears fees ... 2,587 0 0 2. Talbana ... ... 54 8 0 3. Court-fee stamps ... ... 19 12 0 4. Costs for meeting travelling allowance of Government officers and police witnesses examined by the first party ... 208 0 0 5. Travelling expenses of the first party ... ... 752 0 0 6. Costs of bringing 16 witnesses examined by the first party ... 80 0 0 7. Costs for taking certified copies of documents ... ... 165 0 0 8. Typing charges ... ... 40 0 0

The Sessions Judge recommends that items 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the above should be allowed in full, a total of Rs. 362-4-0 (the Sessions Judge''s figure of Rs. 358-7-0 under this head appears to be a mistake). Items 7 and 8 also appear to be reasonable, and I would allow a total of Rs. 500 under these six heads. The Sessions Judge recommends a sum of Rs. 500 only as lawyers'' fees, but I think that this is inadequate, and that a sum of Rs. 1,500 will be suitable for lawyers'' fees, and for travelling and other expenses as claimed in item 5. I therefore allow a sum of Rs. 2,000 as costs. There is a further question as to the realization of these costs. It appears that the three persona forming the second party have now left the service of the Estate, and that the notices issued from this Court could not be served on them. The first party now claims against the Mathurapore Zamindary Company itself. The second party''s written statement was filed on behalf of the Company, and it is clear that the Company has been the real contestant throughout. Notice has also been issued on the registered office of the Company in Calcutta to show cause why it should not be made liable for costs, but no appearance has been made on its behalf. I direct that the sum of Rs. 2,000 allowed as costs may be realized from the members of the second party or from the Mathurapore Zamindary Company Limited. This reference is allowed accordingly.