CHITNIS AND KANGA Vs. WAMANRAO S MANTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Somjee setting aside an order made by the Prothonotary for taxation. The learned Judge gave no judgment and therefore we do not know on what view his decision was based.

(2.) THE order made by the Prothonotary was the common form order for taxation of a bill of costs of Messrs. Chitnis and Kanga in relation to certain matters, one of which was an appeal on the appellate side of the High Court. An order for taxation on the original side cannot be made in respect of costs incurred on the appellate side of the High Court, and as to this item, admittedly the order to tax was wrong.

(3.) IT is argued by Mr. Coltman in the first place that the fact of employment of the solicitors and the terms of employment are disputed, and it is unreasonable to put parties to the expense of taxing a bill when ultimately nothing may be payable. The taxation of a bill does not determine the liability of the client to pay, and he is entitled to challenge his liability on a summons under Rule 895 after taxation has taken place. As I have pointed out the power of a Judge to direct taxation under Rule 534 is discretionary. When an application is made ex parte for a common form order for taxation, the Court may direct the solicitor to issue a summons, and may hear what the client has to say in the matter. If the Court thinks that there is a serious dispute as to the fact or terms of employment of the solicitor, the Court may refuse to make an order for taxation and leave the attorney to file a suit; and in that suit the solicitor's right to recover can be first determined, and the amount to be recovered can be determined subsequently by taxation. In the present case, on the affidavits, I do not think there is such serious doubt as to the client's liability to pay as to justify us in refusing to make an order for taxation.