BANOO BEGUM Vs. MIR AUN ALI (NO2)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Rule 577 the first defendant's attorneys applied to me for an order to review the taxation of the plaintiff's Bill of Costs. Mr. Strangman appeared for the plaintiff to support the Bill as taxed, It was originally intended to urge objections against four items namely; (1) Instruction charges; (2) Costs incurred in applying to me in Court to have this suit placed on another Board; (3) Refreshers allowed to Mr. Mirza, counsel for the plaintiff; and (4) Bhatta allowance of a witness named Shaik Hyat Saheb.

(2.) The first objection was not pressed before me : in fact as soon as the matter was brought on, Mr. Nariman abandoned his objection to the Instruction charges. The last item was one which appeared to me to be clearly within the Taxing Master's discretion and on my intimating my disinclination to go into that item Mr. Nariman did not press this matter further. The first and the fourth items objected to by the first defendant therefore go out of consideration. In view of Mr. Strangmaa's contention that the Chamber Judge ought not or will not interfere with the Taxing Master's discretion I think I ought to say here that I must not be taken to lay down a Rule that the Chamber Judge ought not or will not go into questions which are within the discretion of the Taxing Master or enter into questions of quantum in all cas3s. Rule 577 permits " any party who may be dissatisfied with the Certificate or Allocatur of the Taxing Officer as to any item or part of an item " ... "to apply to the Judge in Chambers for an order to review the taxation as to the same item or part of an item "and" on such application the Judge may make such order as to him may seem just."

(3.) In the case of Smith V/s. Butter (1875) L.R. 19 Eq. Cas. 473 where counsel in arguing one of the items contended that it was a mere question of detail in which the Court will not interfere and urged that there must be some question of principle involved to induce the Court to review a taxation, Vice-Chancellor Malins in answer says :- Although the Court is reluctant to go into questions of detail it will do so in a proper case and even in a question of quantum will do so where there has been a charge of a very exhorbitant character.