096-NLR-NLR-V-02-FERNANDO-v.-DE-SILVA.pdf
( 223 )
FERNANDO v. DE SILVA.D. C., Colombo, 3,114.
Practice—Taxation of prospective, costs—Irregularity—-Revision byDistrict Judge of taxed bUl of costs—Civil Procedure Code, s. 214.
Seuible, that it is irregular to tax in a bill, as prospective costs,charges for work not yet done.
rPHE plaintiff in this case appealed lrom an order of the ActingDistrict Jndge of Colombo disallowing his application forexecution of the decree.
Sampayo, for appellant.
1896.
November 3and 24.
1806.
November 3and 2 4.
( 224 )
i
24th November, 1896. Lawbxb, J., in dismissing the appealobserved as follows :—
The attention of the Court is directed to the bill of costs, whichwas taxed by the Secretary of the District Court. That taxationhas'not been referred to the District Court for revision as may b«fdone under section 214. We notice that the bill contains chargesfor work which confessedly has not been done. The appellant’scounsel said that it was an inveterate custom to put prospectivecosts in every bill; and that these were by universal practice taxedby the taxing officer. We were not referred to any authorityfor this practice. Should the matter hereafter come before uswe shall scrutinize strictly a practice which, at first sight, seemsunjustifiable by the Code.
This appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff may (if he can) makean application in proper form.
Bonsbb, C.J.—
1 agree that the appeal should be dismissed, and with theobservations of my brother Lawrie as to the taxation of prospectivecosts.