Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sarojendra Kumar Dutt - Appellant
Versus
Purnachandra Sinha - Respondent
Suit No. 166 of 1945
Decided On : 11-08-1947
Limitation - Attorney's Suit for Costs - Limitation Act, 1908, Art. 84 - Termination of Suit - When Does It Occur - Whether Decree or Judgment - Original Side Rules - Whether Suit Terminated on Delivery of Judgment or on Completion of Decree - English and Indian Decisions Examined - Suit Terminated on Completion of Decree - Suit Held Not Barred by Limitation
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an attorney, sued the defendant for the balance of his taxed costs in a previous suit where he acted as the defendant's attorney. The defendant argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 84 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as the suit had terminated more than three years prior to the filing of the present suit. The plaintiff argued that the suit terminated on the date the allocatur was issued or when he accepted service of the final decree, both of which were within the three-year limitation period.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit terminated on the date the final decree was perfected, which was when it was filed on record. The court analyzed numerous English and Indian decisions on the issue of when a suit terminates for the purposes of limitation, concluding that the suit terminates upon the completion of the decree, not the delivery of the judgment. The court also found that the plaintiff's application for an order for payment under Chapter 38, Rule 48 of the Original Side Rules was a civil proceeding that was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith, and that the court was unable to entertain the application due to a defect of jurisdiction. Therefore, the court excluded the time during which the plaintiff was prosecuting the application from the limitation period, finding that the present suit was not barred by limitation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's suit for the balance of his taxed costs was barred by limitation under Article 84 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The court also considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to exclude the time during which he was prosecuting his application for an order for payment under Chapter 38, Rule 48 of the Original Side Rules from the limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit terminates for the purposes of Article 84 of the Limitation Act, 1908, when the decree finally determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is perfected, i.e., drawn up, signed, sealed, and filed of record. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to exclude the time during which he was prosecuting his application for an order for payment under Chapter 38, Rule 48 of the Original Side Rules from the limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the court was unable to entertain the application due to a defect of jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the balance of his taxed costs, along with interest and costs.
JUDGMENT
S.R. Das, J. - This is an attorney's suit for the recovery of the balance of his taxed costs.
2. The plaintiff acted as the attorney for the present defendant in suit No. 891 of 1931. That suit was filed in this Court on 25-4-1931 by the defendant as the administrator to the estate of his mother Sm. Madhab Mohini Dassi, deceased against the executors of his father Gopal Chandra Sinha, deceased, who was during his lifetime the executor of the deceased lady. That suit was for the recovery of several government promissory notes, jewellery, ornaments and other properties belonging to the deceased lady and alleged to have been retained by the said executors and also for administration, if necessary, of the estate of the said Gopal Chandra Sinha. The defendant retained and employed the plaintiff, who is a practising attorney of this Court, as his attorney to act for him in that suit. The warrant of attorney executed by the defendant on 24-4-1931 is Ex. E in this suit. The said warrant of attorney was duly filed in Court in that suit and the plaintiff acted as the attorney for the defendant throughout that suit under that warrant of attorney.
3. By the preliminary decree made in that suit on 1-6-1933 the defendant was declared entitled to government promissory notes of the face value of Rs. 25,000, Port Trust Debentures of the face value of Rs. 3,000 and to a sum of Rs. 24,135 with interest thereon and the costs of the said suit and a reference was directed to take certain accounts and make certain enquiries for the purpose of ascertaining what further sums, if any, were due from the estate of Gopal Chandra Sinha to the estate of Sm. Madhab Mohini Dassi.
4. The plaintiff duly lodged his bills of costs of that suit upto the said preliminary decree and under some orders made in that suit prior thereto and the same were taxed upon notice to the defendant and allocatures were issued in favour of the plaintiff. The party and party portions of the said taxed costs with interest thereon were realised by the plaintiff from the executor defendants in that suit but the sums of Rs. 149-7-6 and Rs. 1752-2-0 allowed as costs as between attorney and client and Rs. 357-0-6 being the amount double crossed upto the preliminary decree remained unpaid.
5. Pursuant to the preliminary decree the Assistant Referee of this Court took up the reference and after a protracted hearing made his report on 7-11-1938. By that report the Assistant Referee found and certified that a sum exceeding Rs. 31,000 was still due from the estate of Gopal Chandra Sinha to the estate of Sm. Madhab Mohini Dassi and he recommended that the costs of the reference certified for counsel should be paid by the executor defendants in that suit to the plaintiff therein i.e., the present defendant.
6. Exceptions were taken to the report by both parties in that suit and after the exceptions had been heard for some days the parties thereto arrived at certain terms of settlement. On 25-8-1941 a final decree was passed in that suit in accordance with those terms of settlement which were ordered to be carried out. The terms of settlement embodied in that final decree (Ex. F) were as follows:
(1) Both the exceptions now pending shall be discharged and the Report of the Assistant Referee is hereby confirmed including the costs recommended by him.
(2) The Executor defendants shall get the costs of this suit and also of the Reference and exceptions as of a hearing and also of the costs of the suit No. 1084 of 1931 (Sadasiv Mitter v. Purna Chandra Sinha) out of the estate of Gopal Chandra Sinha to be taxed, if necessary, as between attorney and client.
(3) Purna Chandra Sinha will be at liberty to pay all his costs of the two exceptions to be taxed as between attorney and client as of a hearing as also the attorney and client portion of the costs (1) of this suit, (2) of the said other suit No. 1084 of 1931 and (3) of the reference before the Assistant Referee out of the estate of Madhab Mohini D
gpt-4
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
Court has discretion under Section 149 to accept payment of deficit court fee at any stage, including after limitation, which cannot invalidate the suit if proper jurisdiction existed.
The court emphasized that issues of fact relating to a settlement and limitation must be adjudicated at trial rather than through a dismissive application of procedural rules.
The exclusion of time under S.14 of the Limitation Act applies when the court's endorsement process causes delays.
The absence of a specified time limit in a decree allows the decree-holder to deposit the required amount at any time, affirming the principle that interpretations favoring the decree-holder should b....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
