Judgement Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (April 21, 1915) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Jessore. The suit was brought by the respondents to eject the appellants from 5760 bighas of land. The questions at issue in the litigation were entirely questions of fact, and do not call for a report. The evidence included a great number of documents ranging over nearly a century. 1919. May 26, 27, 29; June 2, 3. Sir Erle Richards K. C., and Kenworthy Brown for the appellants. De Gruyther K. C., and Sir William Garth for the respondents. July 24. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD PHILLIMORE. [The judgment, after a full considera tion of the evidence, stated their Lordships grounds for disagreeing with the finding of the High Court, and concluded as follows ] Their Lordships cannot leave this case without making an observation of a nature which unfortunately this Board has had to make before, but seldom with such insistence as in the present case. The printed Law Rep. 42 Ind. App. 299 ( 1914- 1915) Gopal Chandra C haudhuri V. Rajanikanta Ghosh record contains 2187 pages, besides about 100 pages of supplementary appendix; 368 of these pages are taken up in setting out the items of a measurement "chitta" of the property in the possession of the defendants in 1852. Their Lordships appreciate the importance of this document as supporting the possession by the defendants at that date of the property in dispute, but a few pages would have given all the materials necessary. If the first nine pages giving a days work with the details of the persons present, and showing various parcels of land in Kalinagar, and one or two pages showing parcels in the other disputed village of Ratinagar had been printed, and a few lines added stating that these were printed as specimen pages, every object would have been obtained. It is unfortunate that practitioners in India will not undertake the very slight responsibility which such action would lay upon them. But if they will not it ought to be the duty of some official in the High Court to see that such wholly unnecessary expense as has been incurred in the present case should not be allowed. It was the appellants duty to print the record. But if they will not it ought to be the duty of some official in the High Court to see that such wholly unnecessary expense as has been incurred in the present case should not be allowed. It was the appellants duty to print the record. It is due to their default in the exercise of a discriminating judgment that so much unnecessary matter was wastefully printed, and as a lesson to their advisers and all other practitioners, their Lordships propose that the Registrar of the High Court at Calcutta should disallow the actual costs of printing the record from page 1442 to page 1664, both inclusive, and from page 1690 to page 1797, both inclusive, and such consequential costs as he may think right in proportion, and that the costs to be taxed in England should also be reduced by such amount as the Registrar of the Privy Council may consider is attributable to the insertion of this superfluous matter. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed, that the decree of the High Court should be reversed, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit with costs to be paid to the second defendant should be restored, and that the defendants should have their costs in the High Court, and their costs less those disallowed as aforesaid of their appeal to His Majesty in Council.