1913 Present: Wood Renton A.C.J. and De Sampayo A.J.

WIDYASEKERA v. DIAS.

305-D. C. Colombo, 35,897.

Proctor-Proxy authorizing proctor to obtain injunction-Proctor obtains mandate of sequestration by mistake-Writ of injunction ordered by Court-Mistake of chief clerk and proctor-Client not liable in damages.

The defendant by his proxy authorized his proctor to sue the plaintiff for rent, to obtain an injunction restraining him from disposing of or removing his property, and also to "file all necessary papers and to take all steps necessary in the premises." The. injunction was granted by Court, but the proctor prepared by mistake a mandate of sequestration, instead of a writ of injunction, and obtained the signature of the chief clerk and forwarded it to the Fiscal. The plaintiff brought this action for damages for wrongful sequestration.

Held, that the defendant was not liable, as his proxy had expressly limited his proctor's authority.

THE facts are fully set out in the judgment.

A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the plaintiff, appellant.

R. L. Pereira, for the defendant, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 27, 1913. WOOD RENTON A.C.J.-

This case raises an important question as to the liability of a suitor for the mistakes of his proctor. The material facts are these. The plaintiff, a vedarala, was the defendant's tenant. The defendant and his wife mortgaged the house which he occupied to a third party, who put the bond in suit and purchased the house himself. The defendant put forward a claim to a part of the house on behalf of his stepdaughter. The purchaser thereupon gave notice to the plaintiff not to pay any more rent to the defendant. The plaintiff acted on this notice, and the defendant forthwith sued him in C. R. Colombo, 32,471, claiming an injunction to restrain the defendant in that case from disposing of or removing the household furniture and effects which he then had in the house in question, and also judgment for the balance of rent alleged to be due. The plaint was filed on February 3, 1913, and the proxy in favour of the defendant's proctor, which bore the same date, authorized him to sue the plaintiff for the rent, to obtain an injunction restraining him from disposing of or removing his property, and also to " file all necessary papers and to take all steps necessary in the premises."

This statement of the scope of the proctor's authority was written in ink in the body of the proxy itself. The printed matter which followed in no way extended his powers. The defendant stated in his evidence that he had seen his proctor on February 1, and instructed him to file an action for rent, and move for a writ of .injunction restraining the plaintiff from selling his property. That statement is corroborated by the affidavit sworn by the defendant in support of the application for an injunction, and also by the terms of the proxy itself. On February 2 the proctor asked the defendant for Rs. 13 for guard hire, and the defendant paid him the money. The injunction was granted on February 3, subject to the condition that the defendant should give security for costs in the sum of Rs. 200. A security bond was prepared and filed. It shows on the face of it that the order in respect of which the bond had been required was an injunction. The proctor went to Mr. Brohier, Chief Clerk of the Court of requests, Colombo, and asked him what form to use. Mr. Brohier referred him to the schedule of forms in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the practice in the Court of Requests, Colombo, for proctors to prepare and submit to the chief clerk drafts of orders of this description. The Code of Civil Procedure itself recognizes the right of proctors to charge for such work, and the practice may give rise to little mischief if it is carefully supervised by the responsible officers of Court themselves. The proctor found no form of injunction in the schedule to th