1935   Present  :  Akbar, Poyser, and Maartensz JJ.

In re TWO PROCTORS.

IN THE MATTER OF A RULE ISSUED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
 UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE COURTS ORDINANCE.

Proctor-Settlement of case-Stipulation for payment of exceptional fee- Attempt to keep the payment secret-Deceit and malpractice-Proctor and client-Jurisdiction of Court to inquire into question of costs-Courts Ordinance, No. 1 of 1889, s. 19.

Two persons Karuppiah and Kaduravel of Gampola claimed the money due on a prize drawn in a sweep conducted by the Galle Gymkhana Club, and, as a result, an interpleader action was instituted in the District Court of Galle to decide the dispute. The case was settled by a joint motion filed in the action in the following terms:-"We move that decree be entered declaring each of the defendants entitled to a half share of the amount in deposit, each party to bear his own costs."

The first and second respondents were proctors practising in Gampola, who advised Karuppiah and Kaduravel respectively, throughout the proceedings that culminated in the settlement.

The motion for the settlement contained a certificate that it was explained to the defendants by the two respondents, who signed it.

The first respondent stipulated for the payment to him of a fee of Rs. 6,000 and it was part of the settlement that the fee should be paid to him out of the half share of the money allotted to Kaduravel. The second respondent gave an undertaking that the fee would be paid.

Held, that the terms of the settlement had been drawn up to mislead the Court and to conceal the fact of the payment to the first respondent, and that the conduct of the respondents amounted to deceit and malpractice within the meaning of section 19 of the Courts Ordinance.

A Court has inherent power to inquire into a question of costs as between proctor and client.

Mere belief in the truth of a client's case does not necessarily imply that a proctor who suggests a settlement on less advantageous terms to his client is guilty of corrupt conduct.

THIS was a rule issued by the Supreme Court against the two respondents who are proctors of the Court on three charges framed under section 19 of the Courts Ordinance. The first count charged the first respondent with being guilty of malpractice, in that he acted for and on behalf of Karuppiah against Kaduravel after an inquiry at which Kaduravel and his witnesses had disclosed to the first respondent evidence on which Kaduravel relied to prove his claim. The second count charged both respondents with corruptly entering into an agreement of arrangement for the settlement of the matter in dispute in pursuance of which the second respondent agreed to pay Rs. 6,000 to the first respondent from the half share which was to be given to Kaduravel. The third count charged the respondents that in submitting to the District Judge of Galle the motion of settlement they were guilty of deceit and malpractice, in that the terms of the settlement were not correct when it stated that each party was to bear his own costs.

J. E. M. Obeyesekere, Acting D. S-G. (with him Crosette Tambiah, C.C.), in support.

R. L. Pereira, K.C. (with him H. V. Perera and Garvin), for first respondent.

F. de Zoysa, K.C. (with him S. W. Jayasuriya), for second respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

 June 24, 1935. AKBAR J.-

This is an inquiry into a rule issued by this Court against the two respondents, who are proctors of this Court on three charges framed under section 19 of the Courts Ordinance, 1889.

The facts connected with this inquiry are long and complicated and formed the subject-matter of a District Court case in Galle (D. C. Galle, No. 31,009) and a trial before the Assize Court in Kandy (12 S. C, P. C. Gampola, No. 1,653, 1st Midland Circuit 1934).

The whole proceedings originated as the result of a labourer on Baranagalle estate, Dolosbage, winning the first prize in a sweep held by a ra