AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
William Ayling, J.—In this case the [Magistrate has passed an Order making all the counter--petitioners in a possession case liable for petitioner''s costs in the Shape of Vakil''s fee.
This order was passed some six weeks after the possessory order, apparently immediately on the presentation of a petition by the successful party to the possession case and the counter-petitioners seem to have had no opportunity of being heard.
I am not prepared to say that the delay in passing the order necessarily affected the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, but it certainly could not be passed without notice to the other side affected by, it, and the present petitioners who did not claim possession had a special case for exemption from liability for costs'' which called for consideration.
The Magistrate''s order dated 29th April 1921, awarding costs is set aside he will restore the petition (presented u/s 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing order of 29th April 1921) to fife and dispose of it according to law, bearing in mind the decision in Vythianada Tambiran v. Mayandi Chetty 29 M. 373 : 4 Cr. L.J. 232.
The costs if paid, should be refunded.