1920 (12) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Attorney's right to payment for taxed bills of costs.
2. Attorney's particular or active lien on recovered money.
3. Application of the Limitation Act to the attorney's claim.
4. Objections to specific bills of costs.
5. Discretion of the court under Rule 59 of Chapter XXXVIII.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Attorney's Right to Payment for Taxed Bills of Costs:
The attorney applied under Rule 59, Chapter XXXVIII of the High Court Rules for an order against his client for payment of sums amounting to Rs. 531-14-0 allowed on taxation of four bills of costs. The court noted that the retainer, the fact that the work was done, and the proper charges were beyond dispute. The court found no substantial dispute regarding the existence or non-existence of a special bargain between the attorney and the client.

2. Attorney's Particular or Active Lien on Recovered Money:
The attorney had acted for the client in several execution cases, recovering a considerable sum of money. Differences arose regarding whether the attorney's lien extended to all or only one of the execution matters. An order obtained from Mr. Justice Buckland declared that the attorney's particular or active lien extended to all these proceedings. However, Mr. Justice Buckland also decided that the attorney did not have the right to exercise any lien regarding the four bills of costs in question.

3. Application of the Limitation Act to the Attorney's Claim:
The court discussed the application of Section 28 of the Limitation Act of 1908, which states that the right to property is extinguished upon the determination of the limitation period for instituting a suit for possession. However, in personal actions for debt, limitation merely bars the remedy by way of suit and does not extinguish the debt. The court noted that the limitation bar applies to a defendant asserting a right of set-off as if he were bringing an independent suit. The court found that the attorney's claim was not barred by limitation due to a verbal promise from the client to pay when money was recovered in the execution cases.

4. Objections to Specific Bills of Costs:
An objection was raised regarding a bill for Rs. 287 related to the Landora estate. The client contended that the attorney was to look to the prospective borrower or mortgagor for costs. The court found no foundation for this contention, noting that the letter of retainer did not support such an extraordinary bargain. The court concluded that there was no bona fide or substantial dispute requiring further inquiry.

5. Discretion of the Court under Rule 59 of Chapter XXXVIII:
The court considered whether it could make an order against the client for payment under Rule 59, given the lapse of time between the completion of the work and the receipt of money by the attorney. The court found that Rule 59 is technically free from any statute of limitation, as neither Article 84 nor Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies. The court exercised its discretion in favor of the attorney, noting that the facts were not in real controversy and that the client's conduct warranted the application of the rule. The court emphasized that the Limitation Act should be strictly construed and not used to aid unconscionable conduct.

Conclusion:
The court granted the attorney's application for payment with costs, finding no substantial dispute regarding the bills of costs and determining that the attorney's claim was not barred by limitation. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 59, Chapter XXXVIII, in favor of the attorney, emphasizing the need for a summary remedy in cases where the facts are not in real controversy.