007-NLR-NLR-V-07-WIJESINGHE-v.-PAULICKPULLE.pdf
( 19- )
WIJESINGHE v. PAULICKPULLE.
B., Chilaw, 5,620.
1804.
November 21.
Appeal—Order of Commissioner of Court of Bequests as to costs—Civil ProcedureCode, s. 247.
No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from an order of a Commissionerof a Court of Bequests as to costs.
fTi HE defendant, having obtained a decree for costs, sued out a
_L writ of execution against the plaintiff, who pointed out certainland for seizure. Upon seizure one Abeyratne claimed it, but asthe defendant (execution-creditor) failed to appear on the dayappointed for the inquiry, the claim was upheld with costs.Thereafter the defendant moved for and obtained a notice on theplaintiff to show cause why the order upholding the claim withcosts should not be rectified to the effect that the costs of theclaimant be paid by the plaintiff. The Commissioner in duecourse directed that the order should be amended accordingly,and the plaintiff, who was the execution-debtor, was ordered topay the costs of the claim inquiry.
The plaintiff appealed against this order.
if. A. Jayawardene, for the defendant, respondent, objected tothe appeal being heard, as no appeal lay to the Supreme Courtfrom an order of a Commissioner as to costs.
Senewiratne, for appellant.
24th November, 1894. Withers, J.—
I think that the objection taken is sound. The order as to costsarises out of the claim, which under section 247 of the Civil Pro-cedure Code is not subject to appeal. Nor is it an order whichcan be called either a final judgment or one having the effect of afinal judgment such as is contemplated by section 80 of The CourtsOrdinance.
I cannot call to mind, nor can Mr. Seneviratne help me with areference, to any case in wjnch an appeal for costs only has beentaken from an order by a, Commissioner of a Court of Bequests.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
T
♦