MOTI NATWARLAL Vs. RAGHAVAYYA NAGINDAS AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of practical importance concerning the dying profession of Solicitors arises in this appeal by special leave. The question is whether the bill of costs of a Solicitor or an Attorney who has rendered professional services to his client in the City Civil Court can be taxed by the Taxing Master, Original Side. Bombay High Court, and if so, whether it can be taxed on the Original Side scale. The dual system which was prestigiously in vogue in Bombay since the inception of the Bombay High Court has been abolished with effect from January 1, 1977 and therefore the question in not of growing importance. All the same, though the question will by and by cease to have the importance which it has to-day, we are informed at the bar that quite a few cases are kept pending in Bombay to await the decision of this appeal.

(2.) Certain properties belonging to appellants were attached by the City Civil Court, Bombay, in execution of a decree passed by a Court in Bellary. The appellants appeared in the execution proceedings through a firm of Solicitors. M/s. Raghavayya Nagindas and Co., respondents herein, who by the vakalatnama executed in their favour by the appellants, agreed to act, appear and plead for them in the City Civil Court. The respondents took out three Chamber Summonses on behalf of the appellants for raising the attachment, which was eventually raised in about 1960. Thereafter, they submitted three bills to the appellants for their costs and remuneration Since the bills remained unpaid, the respondents obtained on February 8, 1972 an order from the Prothonotary of the High Court directing the Taxing Master to tax the bills. The appellants appealed against the order of the Prothonotary by way of Chamber Summons which was dismissed by the Chamber Judge on October 26, 1972 with liberty to the Taxing Master to decide whether respondents were entitled to be remunerated on the Original Side scale of fees, as between an Attorney and client. The Taxing Master rejected the appellant's contention, taxed the respondents' bills according to the scale of fees applicable on the Original Side of the High Court and directed the issuance of an allocatur.

(3.) Before the respondents could obtain a payment order on the basis of the allocatur, the appellants took out a Chamber Summons on May 7, 1973 challenging the order of the Taxing Master. That Chamber Summons was dismissed by the Chamber Judge whose decision has been confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench.