Skip to content


Kedarnath Bhutra Vs. Johormull Bhutra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Cal465
AppellantKedarnath Bhutra
RespondentJohormull Bhutra
Cases Referred and British Natural Premium Provident Association v. Bywater
Excerpt:
- .....on scale no. 2, mr. gregory argues that the effect of the decree is to supersede all interlocutory orders for costs which have previously been made in the suit. these interlocutory orders include orders which have been made by the court of appeal. he bases that argument on two decisions of wilson, j., in 1891 and 1892 and says that the practice of this court has been in accordance with these decisions. i doubt whether the decisions are sufficient in their terms to support the rule which mr. belchambers based upon them in those days, which rule, i am informed, has been followed hitherto in this court. such a rule would not be in accordance with english practice on this point and in my opinion the rule as minuted by mr. belchambers is not a correct rule or one which should be followed. if.....
Judgment:

Lort-Williams, J.

1. In this case a decree was made by consent, one of its terms being that each party should pay its own costs to be taxed by the Taxing Officer of this Court if necessary as between attorney and client on scale No. 2, Mr. Gregory argues that the effect of the decree is to supersede all interlocutory orders for costs which have previously been made in the suit. These interlocutory orders include orders which have been made by the Court of appeal. He bases that argument on two decisions of Wilson, J., in 1891 and 1892 and says that the practice of this Court has been in accordance with these decisions. I doubt whether the decisions are sufficient in their terms to support the rule which Mr. Belchambers based upon them in those days, which rule, I am informed, has been followed hitherto in this Court. Such a rule would not be in accordance with English practice on this point and in my opinion the rule as minuted by Mr. Belchambers is not a correct rule or one which should be followed. If it is intended to supersede previous interlocutory orders for costs that fact should be stated specifically in the final decree. In the case of a consent decree it should be stated specifically as one of the terms of the agreement to which the parties have come, i.e., it should be stated that they had agreed to abandon the rights which had already accrued to them under the previous orders of the Court. It is worthy of note, that according to the English practice, and I believe also the practice which does or ought to obtain in this Court in the case of orders for costs made by the Court of appeal during the progress of the suit, such orders for costs may be taxed forthwith and execution levied therefor. They are distinguished in this way from interlocutory orders made in the original Court, which according to the practice both here and in England must await taxation at the final termination of the suit. There is very little authority to assist one in coming to a conclusion on this matter, but my decision is based to some extent upon the case of Beynon & Co. v. Godden & Son [1878] 4 Ex. Div. 246 and British Natural Premium Provident Association v. Bywater [1897] 2 Ch. 531. The result is that this application is dismissed with costs.


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