Leno Hamy Et Al V. Nonno Et Al

1913 Present: Pereira J. and Ennis J.

LENO HAMY et al. v. NONNO et al.

80-D. C. Kalutara, 3, 684.

Several defendants who are not conversant with the English language- Copy of plaint or concise statement of its contents with translations ought to be served on defendants.

In a case in which there are several defendants who are not conversant with the English language, the requirements of section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code will not be complied with unless not only a translation of the plaint or of a concise statement of its contents, but a copy of the plaint or a concise statement of its contents as well, is served on each defendant.

As regards serving concise statements of the contents of plaints instead of copies, the discretion of the proctor concerned should not be too narrowly scrutinized, as he has to steer clear of courses that might lead to fatal objections to his proceedings. When the averments in the plaint are such that a concise statement is not likely to give the defendants sufficient notice of all the rights and interests involved in the action, a full copy of the plaint should be served on the defendants.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

F. J. de Saram, for appellant.

Elliott and B. F. de Silva, for respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 29, 1913. Pereira J. -

This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge dated the 13th May, 1913, which, although it deals, inter alia, with the respondent's right to take out a writ against the plaintiff, I can only look upon as an order under section 214 of the Civil Procedure Code in review of the Secretary's taxation of the bill of costs tendered by the respondent against his own clients, the appellants, and I shall deal with it only as such. It was strenuously pressed by the respondent's counsel that the taxation dealt with was the taxation of a bill against the defendants in the case. On a careful examination of the proceedings I find that that is not so at all. On the 13th July, 1911, the respondent filed what he termed the " plaintiff's bill of costs payable by the parties pro rata, " and moved for notice of taxation on the defendants. Eventually that bill was taxed at Rs. 8, 178. 35. The plaintiffs personally were no parties to that taxation. The proctor professed to act for them, but their interests were not independently watched or protected, and in view, especially, of the provisions of section 215 of the Civil Procedure Code, I do not think that the taxation of that bill gave the proctor any claim or right as against his own clients, the plaintiffs. But that is not the bill that we are now concerned with. On the 19th December, 1912, the respondent filed his bill of costs payable by his own clients (the plaintiffs) and moved for notice of taxation on them. Thereafter the proxy given by the appellants in favour of the respondent was cancelled, and the appellants secured the services of another proctor, and in his presence the bill was taxed. It is this taxation that was revised by the District Judge, and in respect of which the order appealed from was made. Inasmuch as the appellants had more than a month's notice of the taxation as required by section 215 of the Code, the taxation was in order, and the question is whether the objections to the items in the bill pressed by the appellants are sound. The objections involve two questions, and our decision on those two questions will practically decide this appeal. The two questions are, (1) whether, under section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code, in a case in which there are several defendants who are not conversant with the English language, a copy of the plaint or a concise statement of its contents and also a translation of such copy or concise statement should be served on each defendant; and (2) whether in this case the respondent should have applied to the Court under section 49 of the Code to file concise statements instead

of copies of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document