Skip to content


isoob Saiba Abdul Rahiman Vs. Haidar Saiba Imam Saiba - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Reference No. 4 of 1921
Judge
Reported in(1921)23BOMLR883
Appellantisoob Saiba Abdul Rahiman
RespondentHaidar Saiba Imam Saiba
Excerpt:
bombay pleaders act (bom. act xvii of 1920), section 10(1)-suit-execution proceedings-pleader-vakilpatra not to be filed again in execution proceedings.;applications for execution of deorees are proceedings in auifca and do not require separate vakilpatras under section 10(1) of the bombay pleaders act, 1920. - - there is no necessity why an additional tax should be imposed upon litigants, and clearly the original vakalatnama in the suit continues in force for the purpose of execution proceedings, although under the act the vakil is now entitled to a separate fee on account of those proceedings.norman macleod, kt., c.j.1. this is a reference by the subordinate judge of honavar asking this court to decide the point whether applications for execution of decrees are proceedings in suits and do not require separate vakalatnamas under section 10(1) of act xvii of 1920. we think the question should be answered in the affirmative. we see nothing in the bombay act xvii of 1920 which would change the ordinary practice with regard to vakalatnamas. there is no necessity why an additional tax should be imposed upon litigants, and clearly the original vakalatnama in the suit continues in force for the purpose of execution proceedings, although under the act the vakil is now entitled to a separate fee on account of those proceedings.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. This is a reference by the Subordinate Judge of Honavar asking this Court to decide the point whether applications for execution of decrees are proceedings in suits and do not require separate Vakalatnamas under Section 10(1) of Act XVII of 1920. We think the question should be answered in the affirmative. We see nothing in the Bombay Act XVII of 1920 which would change the ordinary practice with regard to Vakalatnamas. There is no necessity why an additional tax should be imposed upon litigants, and clearly the original Vakalatnama in the suit continues in force for the purpose of execution proceedings, although under the Act the Vakil is now entitled to a separate fee on account of those proceedings.


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