Summary remedy for taxed costs may be granted despite limitation objections when material facts are substantially undisputed.

An attorney's application for payment of taxed costs under Rule 59 of Chapter XXXVIII was held maintainable despite lapse of time and a limitation objection. The Court reasoned that a suit for recovery being potentially time-barred did not automatically defeat a lien or set-off claim, and that Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was concerned with extinction of rights in possession cases, not a personal debt of this kind. It further held that an alleged special bargain did not bar the summary remedy where there was no bona fide substantial dispute requiring trial. On substantially undisputed facts, the Court exercised its summary jurisdiction and allowed payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application by an attorney under Rule 59 of Chapter XXXVIII of the High Court Rules for payment of taxed costs could be granted notwithstanding lapse of time and the contention that the claim would be barred in a suit under the Limitation Act, and whether the existence of any alleged special bargain or limitation objection required refusal of the summary remedy.

Analysis: The attorney's claim related to taxed bills of costs, and the Court held that the right to a lien or set-off was not defeated merely because a suit for recovery might be time-barred. Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was treated as dealing with extinction of rights in possession cases, not with a personal debt, while the limitation bar was considered applicable to set-off only in the manner recognised by law. The Court further held that Rule 59 was not rendered inapplicable merely because a special bargain was alleged, where there was no bona fide substantial dispute requiring trial. The earlier view that neither Article 84 nor Article 181 of the Limitation Act applied to such an application was accepted, and discretion was to be exercised on the facts of each case rather than by importing a rigid limitation analogue. On the facts, the debt was found subsisting, the material facts were not seriously controverted, and no principle barred the exercise of the Court's summary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable and was rightly allowed in the attorney's favour despite the lapse of time and the limitation objection.

Final Conclusion: A summary order for payment of taxed costs could be granted on unchallenged facts in the exercise of discretion under the High Court Rules, even where a separate suit might face limitation objections.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts material to an attorney's claim for taxed costs are substantially undisputed, the Court may exercise its summary jurisdiction under the applicable rule to grant payment notwithstanding that a suit on the claim might be barred by limitation, because the limitation law is not automatically imported to restrict that discretionary remedy.

---