ROXBOURGH
SITANSUJIBON MITRA – Appellant
Versus
DILIP KUMAR DUTTA GUPTA – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is a rule purporting to be issued under Section 115, Civil P. C. , against an order of a Munsif cutting down a Pleader Commissioner's bill from an amount of Rs. 1000 odd to an amount of Rs. 300 only on the ground that some unnecessary work had been done 'by the Pleader "commissioner.
( 2 ) THE order was first passed on 15-6-1949 when it is stated that although the Commissioner had received notice (vide Order No. 92 dated 20-4 1949. ") he had not appeared. This seems to me on a perusal of the record to be, to put it mildly, a somewhat unfair statement. It appears to me that the mutter of the bill was pending and on 20-4-1949 an order was passed noting that the bill bad not been disposed of and 5th May was fixed for hearing in the presence of the Commissioner. The Commissioner was duly informed of this. On the 6th May, the order is: "pleaders are not available. To the, date fixed for hearing the above matter. " Exactly what that means is obscure. Apparently, it muse be taken to mean that the question of the bill would be considered on the date fixed for peremptory hearing which was 2-6-1949. At any rate, 2-6-1949 was the only date fixed for any hearing in co
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.