JAGDISH KRISHNA KAPUR Vs. VACHHA AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this litigation are few and simple. Vachha and Co., the 1st respondents in this proposed appeal, were engaged as Attorneys by one lady Bai Hamida Begum alias Kishori Sheikh Alladatta, a Pakistani national, at present residing at Karachi in Pakistan. The present appellant Jag-dish Krishna Kapur was the power of attorney holder of this lady. The lady had filed two writ petitions on the Original Side of the High Court for which Vachha & Co. were engaged as Advocates and Solicitors. All the instructions were given from time to time by the present appellant Jagdish. In a contract made with the Solicitors' firm Bai Hamida Bagum was undoubtedly liable to pay all the costs and charges of the firm. In addition, the appellant also agreed personally to pay all the costs and charges of the firm.

(2.) After the litigation ended, the Taxing Master was approached by the respondents for preparation of their bill of costs. Throughout the proceedings, the present appellant was kept informed, but he never participated. As a result, the Taxing Master prepared the bill. Two allocatures were issued. When the question of recovery arose, the appellant who was still contacted by the respondents advised the respondents to approach the Custodian of Enemy Property. He wrote to the respondents that the Custodian held considerable amount of money he-longing to the lady and the recovery be tried at that end. It appears that Vachha and Co. either failed to recover anything or did not bother to recover from the Custodian.

(3.) The respondents then took out a chamber summons addressed to the appellant himself. This chamber summons was served upon the appellant as early as April 1978. It appears that on an earlier occasion he got some time, but ultimately on the 16th of June 1978 when the chamber summons was called out for hearing, the appellant was personally present. He says that he asked for time. But the minutes of the order recorded do not indicate that any such prayer was made. From the minutes it appears that in due course, after hearing the parties, the learned single Judge made the chamber summons absolute in terms of prayer (a). On the basis of this order, recovery of the bill of costs is being made against the appellant personally. Hence, he has filed this appeal.