Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. - A question of practical importance concerning the dying profession of Solicitors arises in this appeal by special leave. The question is whether the bill of costs of a Solicitor or an Attorney who has rendered professional services to his client in the City Civil Court can be taxed by the Taxing Master, Original Side. Bombay High Court, and if so, whether it can be taxed on the Original Side scale. The dual system which was prestigiously in vogue in Bombay since the inception of the Bombay High Court has been abolished with effect from January 1, 1977 and therefore the question in not of growing importance. All the same, though the question will by and by cease to have the importance which it has to-day, we are informed at the bar that quite a few cases are kept pending in Bombay to await the decision of this appeal.

2. Certain properties belonging to appellants were attached by the City Civil Court, Bombay, in execution of a decree passed by a Court in Bellary. The appellants appeared in the execution proceedings through a firm of Solicitors. M/s. Raghavayya Nagindas & Co., respondents herein, who by the vakalatnama executed in their favour by the appellants, agreed to act, appear and plead for them in the City Civil Court. The respondents took out three Chamber Summonses on behalf of the appellants for raising the attachment, which was eventually raised in about 1960. Thereafter, they submitted three bills to the appellants for their costs and remuneration Since the bills remained unpaid, the respondents obtained on February 8, 1972 an order from the Prothonotary of the High Court directing the Taxing Master to tax the bills. The appellants appealed against the order of the Prothonotary by way of Chamber Summons which was dismissed by the Chamber Judge on October 26, 1972 with liberty to the Taxing Master to decide whether respondents were entitled to be remunerated on the Original Side scale of fees, as between an Attorney and client. The Taxing Master rejected the appellants contention, taxed the respondents bills according to the scale of fees applicable on the Original Side of the High Court and directed the issuance of an allocatur.

3. Before the respondents could obtain a payment order on the basis of the allocatur, the appellants took out a Chamber Summons on May 7, 1973 challenging the order of the Taxing Master. That Chamber Summons was dismissed by the Chamber Judge whose decision has been confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench.

4. Three contentions were raised by the appellants in the High Court: (1) a Solicitors bill for costs and remuneration in respect of the work done by him in the City Civil Court cannot be taxed by the Taxing Master. Original Side, High Court: (2) the bill, in any event, cannot be taxed according to the scale of fees applicable on the Original Side as between an Attorney and client; and (3) the recovery of the amount taxed by the Taxing Master is barred by limitation under Art. 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court rejected all these contentions by its judgment dated October 8, 1974.*

* (1975) 77 Bom LR 488.

5. Mr. Parekh, appearing for the appellants before us, did not press the third point regarding limitation and rightly so. Article 113 of the Limitation Act, though residuary, applies to suits and cannot govern the special form of remedy available to the Attorneys for recovering their fees. Proceedings in pursuance of that remedy are governed by rule 573 (ii) (a) of the Original Side Rules and the proviso thereto. The proceedings for recovery of fees under those provisions are not barred by time.

6. Counsel has, however, pressed the first two contentions with some zeal. We will first take up for consideration the primary question whether the Taxing Master has jurisdiction at all to tax an Attorneys bill of costs for professional services rendered by him to his client in connection with a litigation in a court other than the Bombay High Court, in this case