RAM BAI Vs. SURAJ KARAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order dated 22-6-1960 of the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby he refused to include in the decree, the Court fee amount and also the Advocate's fee as costs of the suit, payable by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. The plaintiff had brought her suit in forma pauperis. She could not pay the Advocate's fee which she had agreed to pay as she was possessed of no means. The advocate filed his certificate stating that the stipulated fee which was an amount certain, was not paid on account of pauperism. It was requested that that might be included in the decree as a taxable amount. A decree according was drawn with the said amount included therein. The court fee was also included in the decree. Thereafter the judgment-debtor by an application took objection to the inclusion of both the items. The objection with regard to the court-fee was to the effect that the court-fee was directed to be recovered by the Government from the plaintiff. The court-fee thus being payable by the plaintiff it was said that it cannot be taxed as costs of the suit. Then the objection with regard to the Advocate's fee was on the ground that the certificate filed did not show that the Advocate had actually received the fee. Unless there is statement to that effect. The fee could not be included in the decree according to the rules in force. These objections found favour with the learned Judge. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that having regard to the clear provisions of Order 33, Rule 10 C.P.C. the order of costs did include the amount of court-fee which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper.

(3.) It is also urged that the costs according to Order 33, Rule 16 would include all costs of an application for permission to sue as a pauper and of an inquiry into pauperism. Such being the case, merely because the court had ordered that the State Government may recover the court-fee from the plaintiff, the Judgment debtor is not absolved from payment of the same which in fact under the clear provisions of law should be included in the costs. To our minds this plea is tenable. Order 33, Rule 10 reads to the following effect:-