BOHRA KANHAIYA LAL Vs. GENDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a probate proceeding and relates to the costs which have been taxed in the decree of the Court below. It raises a question of principle affecting the practice in subordinate Courts. An application for probate was made on the 18 January 1924, and on the 1 March a caveat was entered. On the 30 August evidence was recorded and probate was ordered to be granted to the applicant. The office of the District Judge taxed the costs on the scale fixed for original suits. An objection was raised by the caveator to the amount taxed, but the learned Judge, relying upon Chap. 16, Rule 2, High Court Rules, dismissed the objection.

(2.) In our opinion Chap. 16, Rule 2, High Court Rules had no direct application to the case at all. The suits and applications spoken of there refer to suits and applications which are tried on the original side by the High Court itself and do not refer to suits tried by subordinate Courts. The case had to be decided in accordance with Chap. 21 of the General Rules (Civil) for subordinate civil Courts. A graduated scale is prescribed for calculating fees in suits, or appeals from original and appellate decrees in suits for money, effects or other personal property, or for land or other immovable property of any description, when such suits or appeals are decided on the merits after a contest.

(3.) On the other hand, Rule 26 prescribes a different scale for miscellaneous judicial cases. It is conceded that if Rule 22 is not applicable then the only other rule which would apply would be Rule 26.