Skip to content


isoob Sahiba Valad Abdul Rahim Vs. Haidar Sahiba Valad Imam Sahiba - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1922)ILR46Bom125
Appellantisoob Sahiba Valad Abdul Rahim
RespondentHaidar Sahiba Valad Imam Sahiba
Excerpt:
bombay pleaders act (bombay act xvii of 1920), section 10 (1) - pleader appearing in a suit need not file fresh vakalatnama in execution proceedings. - - there is no necessity why as 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 honawar 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 as 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 Honawar 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 as 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 //