BABU TARAPADA GANGULY Vs. BABU JITINDRA NATH GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the plaintiffs in a suit before the Subordinate Judge. A Pleader Commissioner was appointed to investigate certain facts including a complicated series of accounts as between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The Commissioner ultimately sent in his bill, and the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded at the invitation of the plaintiffs to review that bill in respect of the Commissioner's services. As a result, he made a reduction in the bill striking out certain items as excessive and not necessary for the duty entrusted to the Commissioner. Not satisfied with that reduction, the plaintiffs have now come to this Court requesting this Court to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The matter might simply his disposed of by the observation that the learned Judge had in acceding to the plaintiffs request to revise the bill of the Commissioner done nothing more than the plaintiffs themselves requested, and in reducing the amount of the bill he had not exceeded his jurisdiction. Therefore there is no reason to inetrfere with the order that he has made.

(3.) But one point was raised by the plaintiffs in support of their application, namely that the Commissioner had priced his time at the rate of Rs. 16 (Rupees sixteen) per diem. It was contended that the price allowed to the Commissioner should be limited to Rs. 8 a day. It would appear that the District Judge had sometime before this commission was entrusted to the Commissioner given notice to the effect that in taxing the costs as a rule, having regard to the financial condition of the country at that time, he would not be prepared to allow a charge of more than Rs. 8 a day in ordinary cases. The parties, however, had agreed to the appointment by the Subordinate Judge of the particular Pleader Commissioner who is a person of standing and experience, and in securing his services no mention was made of the particular scale of remuneration. The Commissioner in the circumstances was perfectly entitled to say that having regard to his standing in the profession a fee of Rs. 16 a day was within what I may call the ordinary market rate for persons of his standing and that it cannot be held to be anything in the nature of an implied contract on his part to work for Rs. 8 only. This is the main point urged by the applicants before us, the plaintiffs which in my opinion fails.