1. This appeal has occupied a great deal of time and we are indebted to learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Chatterjee and also to learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Meyer who has appeared and represented the interests of the respondent as amicus curiae.
2. After considering the matter very carefully, we are of the opinion that subject to one addition the Order of the learned Judge must be upheld. That addition arises out of the decision of the learned Judge that there was an agreement between the client and the at torney that the attorney should not charge the client for in-pocket costs. The matter was dealt with summarily by the learned Judge and except as regards the determination of the right to in-pocket costs the procedure was the proper one. As regards in-pocket costs the client alleged that there was an agreement between himself and the attorney that the attorney should not charge the in-pocket costs and the learned Judge has accepted that allegation as being correct. Normally the attorney would be entitled to charge his in pocket costs and he would be entitled to sue for them on the basis of remuneration for the work he had done for the client.
3. It seems to me that the question of whether there was a contract of the nature the client alleges and the attorney denies was not a suitable subject-matter for determination in a summary proceeding of this kind. The proceeding began on 13th July as the result of an informal petition laid before the Judge which the attorney did not see and the matter was finally determined a month later on 14th August. It has therefore been determined without the attorney having the benefit of the usual incidents of a trial according to the ordinary procedure of this Court. The summary procedure in my view was not intended to apply to a matter of this latter kind and I am of the opinion that the question whether there was an agreement between the attorney and the client to charge in-pocket costs must be determined, if the attorney so desires it, by a suit brought by him.
4. The Order as made by Ameer Ali J. will therefore stand with this addition. The said attorney being at liberty to sue for his taxed in-pocket costs in a separate suit, the said sum of Rs. 1000 will remain in the hands of the surety for three months after which time either party will be at liberty to apply to this Bench for directions as to the disposal of the same. The exceptions to the attorney's bill will be heard and disposed of within ten days from this date by the Registrar of this Court. In the event of the attorney appealing to the Judge from the decision of the Registrar in the matter of exceptions, such appeal will be heard and disposed of within one month of the filing of the same. There will be no Order as to costs in this appeal.
5. I agree.
6. I agree.