Meenatchi V. Rengappa Pulle Et Al.,

Present: Pereira J. and Ennis J.

MEENATCHI et al. v. RENGAPPA PULLE et al.

128-D. C. Colombo, 472.

Review of taxation of bill of costs-Practice of Court clashing with statutory rules of procedure-All events in the course of an action should be minuted in the journal and signed by the Judge-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 214 and 92.

Section 214 of the Civil Procedure Code does not make the right of a party to claim a. review of taxation of a bill of costs by a Court dependent upon his having appeared before the Secretary and objected to items of the bill before taxation.

Pereira J.-It is said that the practice of the District Court of Colombo is to submit objections to items of the bill to the Secretary before taxation. If that is an inveterate practice nobody will blame a party for following it, but if the alleged practice is so extended as to clash, to any the slightest extent, with the statutory rules of procedure, it must to that extent be held to be ineffectual.

It is necessary that the provisions of section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code as to keeping a journal of the proceedings in an action should be strictly adhered to. All the events in the course of the action should be minuted as they occur, and each minute should be dated and signed by the Judge himself.

THE facts are set out in the judgment of Pereira J.

Elliott (with him Retnam), for the appellants.-The appellants' proctors applied to the Secretary for time to file objections, and also filed a motion in Court asking for an extension of time. No order was made by the Court on this motion until after the day of taxation. The appellants did not know when the bill was going to be taxed, and consequently were not present when the bill was taxed by the Secretary.

The fact that the appellants did not object to the items of the bill before the Secretary does not preclude him from asking for a review of taxation by the Court. Section 214 of the Civil Procedure Code does not make that a condition precedent.

Samarawickreme, for the respondents.-The appellants did not appear before the Secretary and state their objections. They cannot now get the taxation reviewed. See 39-D. C. Colombo, 27,522. [Ennis J.-Section 214 does not enact that a party dissatisfied with the taxation cannot ask for a review unless he had appeared before the Secretary and objected to the bill.]

Section 214 contemplates an inter parties proceeding before the Secretary.

Under section 4 of the Civil Procedure Code the Supreme Court is empowered to frame rules. No rules have been framed on this point. The practice of Courts should be followed. It has been the practice to file objections before the Secretary. Counsel also cited Abeyadeera v. Soysa et al.1

Cur. adv. vult.

October 9. 1912, Pereira J.-

This is an appeal by the respondent on the petition filed in the Court below dated May 30. 1911, from the order of the District Judge dated June 21, 1912, disallowing an application by the appellants under section 214 of the Civil Procedure Code for a review of the taxation of a bill of costs given in to the Secretary by the respondents. The bill of costs is dated April 25, 1912, and there is this endorsement on it: " Received notice for May 15, 1912," apparently signed by the appellants' proctors. There is nothing to show that the bill was actually taxed on that day. There is a note on the bill by the Secretary dated thus: " 28/5." to the effect that the bill is taxed at (how much I cannot say). It looks as if it was taxed at Rs. 825.52, and as if, subsequently, a further sum of Rs. 111.25 was written below that sum, and the two added together, and the aggregate amount entered on the paper, so that the writing encroached partly on the signature of the Secretary that had already been written there. Anyway, in the journal, which is a part of the record-written, I should, in passing, observe, on much too flimsy paper-there is this entry: "Peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document