RAMNARAIN SAH Vs. BASANTI LAL SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur enhancing the rate of remuneration of a commissioner, Babu Basanti Charan Sinha, from two thirds of Rs, 16 to Rs. 32 per day of six hours, without hearing the petitioners. The petitioners were the defendants in the partition suit brought by the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 is the Pleader named. In this Court both the plaintiff and the Pleader are represented by the same Advocate, a fact which occasioned difficulties at the hearing since their interests are not the same. The order impugned is represented as absolutely the last straw in a most harassing litigation. The plaintiff who is entitled to a one-sixth share, brought his suit for partition so long ago as September 30, 1929. For most of the time it was on the file of Babu Harihar Oharan who has since retired. An inventory of the property, as pointed out by the plaintiff, was made before the case came, on for hearing. The order sheet both before and after hearing makes most painful reading and it is palpably incumbent on the District Judge of Muzaffarpur to look into the working of this Court.

(2.) The preliminary decree was passed by the 97 order in the order sheet on February 29, 1932 and on the same day a further order was passed calling upon the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 224 as commission fee for a commissioner for two weeks. This order shows what the Subordinate Judge contemplated. The suit had been for accounts as well as partition; but the learned Subordinate Judge had held that defendant No. 1 who was the karta, was liable only to the extent of the assets available for partition, referring to the decisions in Sita Ram V/s. Hanuman Prasad 100 Ind. Cas. 632 : A.I.R. 1927 Pat. 413 : 8 P.L.T. 145, and Jyotibati Chaudhurain V/s. Lachhmes war Prasad 126 Ind. Cas. 372 : A.I.R. 1930 Pat. 260 : Ind. Rul. (1930) pat. 612. He appointed a junior Pleader Babu Satdeo Narain as commission on remuneration of Rs. 16 per day. The Pleader conducted operations with monumental incompetence and waste of time which should be taken into account when payment is made to him. The Subordinate Courts at Muzaffarpur have always possessed an unenviable reputation in regard to commissions and it is hoped that the learned District Judge will bring matters into order in this respect and see that a reasonable and if possible, inclusive remuneration is fixed at the outset, that it is on the basis of the low present-day fees of legal practitioners and that a most careful scrutiny of and check upon their bills of fees is made. Slackness in this regard and in the selection of commissioners in respect of whom thorough competence should be the sole criterion, is a sure index that a judicial officer is of inferior caliber and should be brought to the administrative notice of this Court. It is quite clear, first, that this junior Pleader ought not to have been appointed at all, and secondly, that he would have been excessively remunerated at one-third of the fee fixed.

(3.) He apparently spent much time on counting mangoes though the plaintiff was initially responsible for this incredible state of affairs, the commissioner ought to have had enough backbone to refuse or to cut very short the time so spent and the proceedings went on until June 29, 1933, when, at the instance of the plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge, a new officer, recorded an order appointing Babu Basanti Charan Sinha, a senior Advocate of the Court as commissioner with Babu Satdeo Narain as junior, the fee of Rs. 16 to be divided between them in the ratio of two to one. This order was apparently made with the consent of the parties. Clearly something had to be done; but the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have acted without proper circumspection. Two days later he recorded that the Senior commissioner had applied for special fees of Es. 32 per day and passed the following ill-considered order in the absence of the parties: I think he deserves consideration and I allow him Rs. 32 per diem consisting of six hours. I fix the fee of the junior commissioner at Rs. 6 per diem for six hours. The junior commissioner will have practically not to do much, but only to help the senior commissioner.