Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.@mdashThis 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 u/s 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.
