Bombay High Court
Isoob Saiba Abdul Rahiman vs Haidar Saiba Imam Saiba on 16 June, 1921
Equivalent citations: (1921)23BOMLR883, AIR 1922 BOMBAY 113(2)
JUDGMENT Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. This is a reference by the Subordinate Judge of Honavar 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 an 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.