102-NLR-NLR-V-57-WIMALA-TUDOR-Appellant-and-E.-S.-DASSANAYAKE-Respondent.pdf
1955Present : Gratiaen, J., and Swan, J.WTMAT.A TL'DOI!, Appellant, ami 1C. S. PASS AN AY AK 1C, licspcmdcnt.,S'. C. {Inti/.) ■) of 71)66—I). C. Pat no joint, -JSS Sj>.
Costs—Application for rcricu• oj luxation—Proper procedure—Cird Procedure Code,s. 214.-
Where n parly, who had l>ccn ordered to pay the costs of an inquiry and wasdis-sat infied with tlic taxation of costs. submitted a statement of object ion to theNreretnrv of the t.'onrt wlio in turn submitted the document to the District
Judge, recommending that tlie matter should he fixed for inuniry under section214 of llio Civil I’roccduro Code—
Held, that the procedure was substantially in conformity with the provisionsof Section 214 of tho Civil Procedure Code.
•A-rPJSATj from an order of the District Court, Patnapura.
C. O'. IVceramanlry, for tho claimant-appellant.
S. Jl*. Juyasuriya, with U. P. Wcuasitujhe, for the judgment-creditorrespondent.
Cur. adv. cull.
November 3, 1 955. Gkatiaex, J.—
Tho respondent to this appeal caused certain immovable propertyvalued at Rs. 8,000 to be seized in execution of a money dccreo forits. 947/40 against his judgment debtor. The .appellant- claimed that theproperty belonged to him and was therefore not liable to seizure. Hisclaim was rejected by the Court and he was ordered to pay the costs oftho inquiry. The present dispute relates to the taxation of the respon-dent's bill of costs.
The .Secretary of the Court taxed the bill of costs at Rs. S44/- on SthMarch 1954. On 31st March .1954, however, the apjiellant’s Proctorobjected to the taxation on the ground that tho bill had been wronglytaxed by reference to the value of the property and not (as it admittedlyshould have been) to the amount of the decree sought to be executed.The Proctor accordingly asked that the Court should review tho taxationunder section 214 of the Code. This statement of objection was forwardedby the Secretary to the Distric t Judge with tho following minut-e endorsedon it :
‘ Notice may be issued cm the judgment creditor for 0.5.54.
N*ld
Secretary.”
The matter came up for inquiry in due course. The learned Judge decidedthat the bill had been wrongly taxed under Class 5 of the second scheduleCart 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, and upheld the objection that it shouldhave- been taxed under Class 3. Nevertheless, lie refused to review theluxat ion because, in his opinion, the apjJcHant- had not adopted the correctprocedure for having the matter referred to the Court under section 214.
It is correct to say that, when either party is dissatisfied with theSecretary's taxation, the- Secretary himself, and not the litigant, is theproper person to refer the matter in dispute to the Court. Mohamed v.Deen *. The party is not, however, deprived of his right to claim a re-ference merely because lie had not raised the objection In tho first instance
1 (102?) S Law litcarder J7J.
before tlie bill was taxed by the Secretary. JUcenatchi v. licngappnPulle *. It is sufficient if his objection is raised within a reasonable timeafter taxation. Sapratnadu v. II ijel ungc
The respondent’s complaint is that the appellant (instead of requiringthe Secretary to refer the matter in dispute to the Court), had directlyinvoiced the jurisdiction of the Court under section 214. In myopinion, the correct procedure was substantially followed. The appel-lant’s statement of objection, containing a formal application for a reviewof taxation, was in fact handed to the Secretary who in turn submittedthe document to the District Judge, recommending that the matter shouldbe. fixed for inquiry under section 214. In Mohamed v. Deen (supra)bv wav of contrast-, the procedure was quite irregular because the Judgepurported cx moo mol a to revise an order of taxation.
1 would allow the appeal and order that the Secretary of the DistrictCourt be directed to tax the bill of costs according to the rates specifiedin Class 3 of the schedule. The respondent must pay to the appellantj»s 21/- as costs in respect of the argument in the Court below, and]{s. 31/o0 as costs of this appeal.
,S\\X, J.—1 agree.
(IVIJ) lo -V- n. Jl'j.
– (rjio) j o. ii. it. :jur.
Appeal allowed.