Norman Macleod, 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.
Isoob Sahiba Valad Abdul Rahim v. Haidar Sahiba Valad Imam Sahiba
Isoob Sahiba Valad Abdul Rahim v. Haidar Sahiba Valad Imam Sahiba
(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
Reference No. 4 Of 1921 | 16-06-1921
Advocate List
Bench
- HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NORMAN MACLEOD
- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SHAH
Eq Citations
- 1921 (23) BOMLR 883
- 64 IND. CAS. 55
- AIR 1922 BOM 113
- ILR 1922 46 BOM 125
- LQ/BomHC/1921/83
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Ss. 95, 96, 97 and 98 — Execution of decree — Original Vakalatnama continuing in force for execution proceedings — No separate Vakalatnama required
