100-NLR-NLR-V-39-SENARATNE-v.-PERERA.pdf
354
Senaratne v. Perera.
1937Present: Fernando A.J.
SENARATNE v. PERERA.206—C. R. Panadurc, 2,655.
Taxation of bill of costs—Bill reduced by more than one-sixth—Costs of taxation—Appeal from order—Civil Procedure Code, s. 214 and 216. ■
Section 216 provides that a proctor, who taxes a bill, Will hot beentitled to charge any fee for taxation if, as a result of the taxation, abill is reduced by more than one-sixth.
The section does not enable the party against whom the bill was taxedto recover the costs of taxation from the proctor in such, a case.
An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from an order of a Court ofRequests reviewing the taxation of a bill of costs.
A
C. Seneviratne, for purchaser, appellant.
N. E. Weerasooria, for defendants, respondents.
PPEAL from an order of the Commissioner of Requests, Panadure.
Cur. adv. vult.
1 (1935) 15 Cty. Law Rec. 12*
8 1 Times Law Rep. 90.
355
FERNANDO A.J.—Senaratne v. Perera.
May 17, 1937. Fernando A.J.—
The appellant purchased a land which was sold in execution of adecree entered in this action and that sale was set aside on an applicationm'ade by the .defendants-respondents. The purchaser-appellant wasalso ordered to pay to the defendants-respondents their costs of thatinquiry.-
Proctor for the respondents then filed his bill of costs amounting toKs. 268.50 and the taxing officer taxed the bill at Rs. 135,85.
The appellant filed objection to this taxation, and the learnedCommissioner of Requests ordered that a further sum of Rs. 49.94 bededucted ftom the sum of Rs. 135.85 at which the bill had been previouslytaxed. The appellant appeals against this order, and Counsel for therespondent contended that such an appeal did not lie, but beforeconsidering this objection, I think it desirable to consider the objectionsthemselves. .
The petition of appeal raises three questions : (1) Is the item Rs. 2.50claimed for obtaining a copy of notes of inquiry X ,5 regular ? (2)Was the appellant bound to pay the sum of Rs. 2.50 which is claimedas batta paid to a clerk in the Fiscal’s Office ?(3) More than 36 per
cent, of the Bill having been disallowed, was the. appellant entitled tothe costs of the inquiry into the taxation ?
With regard to the first item, Counsel for the respondent contendsthat whatever the fee that was payable to the officer who prepared thecopy of the notes of inquiry, the charge that has been allowed is in facta payment to the proctor for his services in obtaining that copy, andincludes payment for letters written in order to obtain the copy, andperhaps, attending on the officer for that purpose. In the statementof objections dated July 21, 1936, proctor for the plaintiff stated thatthe amounts charged for this and several other items were- not inaccordance with the scale of fees allowed for such copies, and the taxingofficer himself has disallowed a portion of the amount claimed fordocuments X 6, X 7, X 9, X 10, &c. The Commissioner of Repuestsalso appears to have considered this item and he stated that the chargeof Rs. 2.50 for X 5 is in order. I do not think it unfair to the appellantthat I should read this observation of the Commissioner of Requestsas meaning that the charge is in accordance with, the scale of feesordinarily allowed for a copy like X 5. In the schedule to the CivilProcedure Code that refers to Courts of Requests, there is no fixed scalefor documents of this kind, but there probably is in every Court ofRequests a scale that is generally adopted, and if according to thatscale the amount claimed is reasonable, I am not prepared to say thatthat amount is excessive, merely because the amount payable to theofficer who prepares the copy is less than the amount claimed by theproctor.
With regard to the second objection, I see that the taxing officerhimself in his minute, dated September 17, 1936, notes that this itemwhich is item 6 in the objections is not disputed. Here again thequestion is as to how much is allowed as batta to an officer, and I seeno reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Requests.It would also appear that this witness had been summoned by both
366
Samsudeen v. Abdul Wahib.
sides, and if the respondent has in fact paid batta for the attendanceof the witness, it is no answer to his claim to say that the appellantalso paid batta to the same witness. If it is true in fact that the witnesshad been paid batta twice over, then the appellant will be able to get arefund of the amount paid by him on the ground that the witness hadalready drawn batta from the other side.
With regard to the third point, Counsel for the appellant referredto section 216 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that if morethan one-sixth of the amount of any bill of costs is disallowed by thetaxing officer, the proctor shall bear the expense of the taxation. Thatsection clearly provides that the proctor who taxes a bill will not beentitled to charge any fee for the taxation, if as a result of the taxation,the bill is reduced by more than one-sixth. I do not see any item inthe bill of costs which contains any charge for taxation, so that the billis regular and no objection can be taken to it under the section. Counselfor the appellant, however, contended that the effect of section 216was to enable the party against whom the bill was taxed to recoverthe costs of taxation from the taxing party, but this is not the effect ofsection 216 and this objection must therefore fail.
Counsel for the respondent contended that there was no appealagainst an order of the Court of Requests on the question of costs,but 1 do not think this principle conflicts in any way with section 214of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides for an appeal to this Courtfrom the decision of the court in review of taxation of costs. In otherwords, although a party cannot appeal against an order made by theCommissioner of Requests ordering him to pay costs of the other side,or refusing to give him costs as against the other side, there is nothingto prevent an appeal to this Court from an order made in the process oftaxation of the costs.
In view of the observations I have made with regard to the objectionsagainst the bill of costs, that have been raised in the Petition of AppealI would dismiss this appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.