WADIA AND GANDHY AND CO Vs. PURSHOTUM SHIVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a summons obtained by Messrs. Wadia Gandhy & Co., attorneys of this Court, on the 11 of March 1907, against their client Purshotam Shivji, calling upon him to show cause why he should not pay to them the sum of Rs. 1764-2-0 being the balance of taxed costs payable by him in respect of three suits in which he employed them as his attorneys. This application is made under Rule 859. The sum claimed is due by the respondent Purshotam Shivji to his attorneys under three allocaturs, copies whereof are annexed to the affidavit of their clerk Paul Phillip Pereira.

(2.) Mr. Inverarity, on behalf of Purshotam Shivji, resisted this application on two grounds. He contended that the applicants were not entitled to proceed by one summons in three different suits and that the claim was barred by the law of Limitation.

(3.) I see no force in the first objection. Although the sum claimed is made up of three smaller sums due in three suits the respondent is not prejudiced by the applicants consolidating their claim and applying by one summons instead of taking out three separate summonses and I think this procedure is manifestly for the advantage of the respondent as the result is a great saving in costs. I can see nothing objectionable in the procedure adopted by the applicants and I hold that the form of procedure adopted is perfectly proper.