JIVANLAL PANALAL Vs. BAI MANCHHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to review the Taxing Master's taxation of the defendant's bill of costs.

(2.) The suit was for possession of certain immoveable property, and on February 6, 1923, a consent decree was passed directing the costs of both sides to be taxed between party and party. There was no order as to which side should pay the other party's coats, but it is admitted that there was an agreement by which the plaintiffs agreed to pay the defendant's costs of the suit. An order had been made prior to the decree directing the plaintiffs to pay the costs of a particular day including the fees for the attendance of witnesses on that day. The taxation before the Taxing Master lasted from October 4, 1922, to November 15, 1922. After the latter date there was a further taxation with regard to payments alleged to have been made to the witnesses amounting to Rs. 924 odd. The plaintiffs contended that the moneys had never been paid to the witnesses) and, if any such payment had been made, that it had found its way back to the defendant's pocket After no less than eleven meetings on this point before the Assistant Taxing Master and a large number of exhibits and books of account had been put in, he held on April 9, 1923, that the payments had not been made, or if they had, they were colourable payments and had come back to the hands of the defendant. The Assistant Taxing Master thereupon disallowed all the payments to the witnesses and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs costs after November 15, 1922. On April 16,1923, the defendant applied for a review of the taxation. In that application she took no objection to the order against her for payment of costs, On April 27, 1923, the warrant to review the taxation was heard and adjourned to June) 23, 1923. Prior to that date, however, on June 22, 1923, the defendant's attorneys wrote to the Taxing Master and the plaintiffs saying that they withdrew the application for review. On June 23, 1923, the Assistant Taxing Master noted the withdrawal of the review and adjourned the warrant to review only on the question of costs. On September 13, 1923, the defendant took out a fresh warrant to review the original taxation and objected to the order for payment of costs made by the Taxing Master on April 9, 1923. On September 29, 1923, the Taxing Master heard the second review and considered that the defendant was not entitled to file a second review but nevertheless ho held that he had no power to order the defendant to pay coats on April 9, 1923, and he directed the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the second warrant to review. The plaintiffs have come here on the Taxing Master's certificate of October 15, 1923, against that decision. They have also taken out a chamber summons in respect of the costs disallowed to them on the original taxation of the bill.

(3.) Now the procedure on the taxation of a bill in the taxing office is very simple. The bill is first taxed roughly by the clerks in the office and then more carefully by the Taxing Master. Thereupon a warrant to tax issues. On that the parties are heard and any party dissatisfied with the Taxing Master's decision takes out a warrant to review under rule 529. The parties are again heard by the Taxing Master and any party dissatisfied with his decision on the review applies for a certificate. With this certificate the Taxing Master states the grounds for his decision on the points on which a certificate is asked ::or. The matter then comes before a Chamber Judge for a review of the taxation