Megh Raj and Others vs Alla Rakhia and Others

Torick Ameer Ali, J.—This is an application for reconsideration of decision of the learned Judge sitting in Chambers, under Order V, rules 2

and 4.

The matter relates to costs which were taxed on the 31st of October, 1942, as between party and party. There was a first application for

review which was decided by the Taxing Officer on the 25th of November, 1942. The second application for review was filed on the 30th of

November, 1942, upon three grounds, principally that the whole taxation was barred on account of the bill not having teen filed in time under

Order XXXV, Rule 15. A second and subsidiary ground was that no good cause had been shown for extension of time under the same rule and

that the extension of time had been granted ex parte. A third point was that the bill, when filed, was not supported by certificates or ""vouchers"" in

respect of counsel''s fees.

The learned Judge gave his decision on the 11th of December, 1942, and with regard to the first point made it clear that the rule itself specifies

the period of limitation quite clearly as three months from the date of the signing of the decree or order. In this view, the second point did not arise.

This application for third review was made on the 7th of January, 1943. The point as to adjournment was not pressed.

We see no reason whatever to differ from the view of the learned Judge with regard to the matter of counsel''s fees. With regard to the first

point pressed before us, we are unable to follow or accept the reasoning contained in the grounds for review with regard to the drawing up of

decrees or orders ""which are not final"". With regard to the point as to the date of the decree, we consider that the rule is perfectly clear and that no

construction can be placed upon it other than that indicated by the learned Judge. In this view, the application for reconsideration must be

dismissed with costs against the applicant, which we fix at Rs. 25.

Srinivasa Varadachariar, J.

I agree that this application should be dismissed with costs. As nothing new has been urged at the reargument before us, I have nothing to add to

the judgment delivered by me when dealing with, this application in the first instance.