JUDGMENT Sulaiman, J.
1. The main point which arises in this application is whether only one set or two sets of costs can be allowed under the rules on account of the legal practitioners' fees. So far as this Court is Concerned it is quite clear that the appeal which was originally filed was distinct and set apart from the appeal which was filed from the decree passed on remand. These two being different appeals separate costs must be allowed,
2. As regards the costs in the Court below the decree was set aside by the High Court and the suit was remanded for trial de novo. But the suit continued to be the same suit. Under Chap. 21, Rule 20, the party entitled under a decree or an order to pay costs in a suit by another party shall not be entitled to any larger allowance for legal practitioner's fees in the suit including all proceedings in the execution of the original decree, than the fees provided in Rule 22. It seems to us that as the rule stands the parties are entitled to only one set of costs on account of both the hearings in the Court below, viz.: that before and after the remand.
3. We accordingly direct that the decree be amended on the following lines: The parties are entitled to the fees paid to their respective legal practitioners in the Court below up to the maximum taxable amount allowable, (only one set of costs being taxed for the proceedings before and after the remand) provided the certificates of fees were duly filed in that Court. The costs of both the parties should be calculated in the Court below on this basis.
4. Both the parties are entitled to separate costs on account of the legal fees for the two appeals pending in this High Court provided certificates were duly filed before those appeals were disposed of. In each case the fees in this High Court are to be calculated on the higher scale. We make no order as to costs of this application.