Skip to content


Laxman Waman Gadre Vs. Saraswati Ganesh Gadre - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Other Taxes
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number First Appeal No. 171 of 1923
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Bom432; (1925)27BOMLR692
AppellantLaxman Waman Gadre
RespondentSaraswati Ganesh Gadre
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
costs - taxation - appeal--bombay pleaders' act (bom. act xvii of 1020) -- dismissal of suit-several defendants-each defendant entitled to full pleader's fees.;under the civil procedure code, no appeal lies against an order passed by a judge directing how costs are to be taxed.; in general, defendants are entitled to their coats taxed on the basis of the valuation of the plaintiff's suit. however many the defendants way be claiming in separate interests, they are entitled to appear and defend the suit, and each defendant's pleader is entitled under the bombay pleaders' act to charge a fee based on the suit valuation for the purpose of pleader's fees. - .....defendants were entitled to their costs taxed on the basis of the valuation of the plaintiff's suit. however many the defendants may be claiming in separate interests, they are t. entitled to appear and defend the suit, and each defendant's pleader would be entitled under the bombay pleaders' act to charge a fee based on the suit valuation for the purpose of pleader's fees. so that as the defendants were successful and their costs were ordered to be paid by the losing party, each defendant was entitled to costs taxed on the basis of the suit valuation and not on the basis of what each defendant's interest might be in the suit itself. the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. In this case the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and lie was ordered to pay the defendants' costs. When the decree was drawn up the plaintiff contended that the coats payable by the plaintiff were not in accordance with the judgment. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed their costs on the valuation of the plaintiff's suit. Defendant No. 3 was also allowed his costs on the same value. The plaintiff then applied to the Judge to alter the method of taxation as appearing in the decree. The Judge declined to alter the taxation. The plaintiff has appealed, it would appear, not against the decree, which embodied the directions given in the judgment, but against the taxation of the costs. We doubt very much whether an appeal lies under any of the provisions of the Code against an order of the Judge directing how costs are to be taxed. However that may be, it is quite clear that the defendants were entitled to their costs taxed on the basis of the valuation of the plaintiff's suit. However many the defendants may be claiming in separate interests, they are T. entitled to appear and defend the suit, and each defendant's pleader would be entitled under the Bombay Pleaders' Act to charge a fee based on the suit valuation for the purpose of pleader's fees. So that as the defendants were successful and their costs were ordered to be paid by the losing party, each defendant was entitled to costs taxed on the basis of the suit valuation and not on the basis of what each defendant's interest might be in the suit itself. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //