The Province of Madras vs Boddu Paidanna and Sons

Ameer Ali, J.—This an application under Order V, rules 2 and 4, for reconsideration of the orders passed by a single Judge in Chambers

reviewing the order and certificate of the Taxing Officer.

Three main points were taken before the learned Judge and before us.

The first which is elevated into a point of procedure, is that there was no affidavit of service of the taxing summons such as, it is contended, is

required or impliedly required, under Rule 16 of Order XXXV. It is conceded that the taxing summons was served and that the applicant appealed

on such taxation and that no prejudice ensued. It appears to us therefore that the point taken is at the most one of regularity of procedure. We do

not see how such a question tan affect the right of the successful party to taxation. We see no reason to differ from the decision of the learned

Judge on this question.

The second point taken is with regard to the costs occasioned by the appearance of the intervener in relation to Order XXXV, Rule 19. The

suggestion is not that the applicant before us has been put to any additional costs, but that having regard to some payment to the Agent for the

intervener the costs payable as between party and party should be reduced.

This point is analogous therefore in principle to the made with regard to the agreement or alleged agreement between the Agent and the client

with reference to Order XXXV, Rule 18. This agreement was not, we are told by the Advocate for the Respondents, proved ; but it has been

admitted before us that some agreement as to quantum existed coupled with the reservation to the Agent of the right to any surplus obtained on

taxation between party and party.

We entirely agree with the learned Judge who heard the original application for review that these are matters purely between attorney and client

and that the party against whom costs have been awarded as between party and party has no right to bring them into any form of account. Rule 48

is clearly a rule made wholly as between attorney and client and for the protection of the client against his own Agent.

It has been suggested that the scale of costs or quantum should be reduced. While we consider, with the learned Judge sitting in Chambers on

the original review, that this is a matter wholly discretionary for the Taxing Officer and not one which can properly be urged either in first or second

review, we see no reason in this case to suppose the amounts awarded as other than appropriate.

The application is therefore dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 25.