9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and competence of the trial judge to pass the impugned order. 2. Justification of the trial judge in passing the order when the respondent was not a party to the suit. 3. Error apparent on the face of the record in passing the impugned order. 4. Legal right of an advocate to claim fees without filing an independent proceeding. 5. Jurisdiction of the trial judge to pass the order in a suit filed by a third party. 6. Validity of the order on merits without specific agreement or document. 7. Proper appreciation of legal precedents by the trial judge. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Competence of the Trial Judge: The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the 5th Joint Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara, to direct them to deposit Rs. 4.77 lacs towards professional fees and Rs. 50,000 towards costs. The relevant statutory provision is Order III Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which mandates that the appointment of a pleader continues until determined with the leave of the court. Various precedents, including Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Chhaganmal Bastimal and Others (AIR 1982 Allahabad 183), establish that leave of the court is necessary for discharging an advocate. The court concluded that the trial judge was competent to pass the order under Order III Rule 4(2) CPC. 2. Justification of the Trial Judge: The respondent was engaged by petitioners no. 3 and 4 as their advocate. Despite not being a party to the suit, the respondent claimed fees for his professional services. The court held that under the provisions of different statutes, an advocate is entitled to claim his fees before being discharged, supported by various decisions, including Babui Dulhika Devi v. Ram Ashay Prasad (AIR 1930 Patna 403). 3. Error Apparent on the Record: The petitioners argued that the trial judge committed an error by passing the impugned order without any specific prayer from the respondent. The court found that the respondent had made it clear in his reply and written submissions that his dues were outstanding and requested the court to direct the petitioners to pay the fees before permitting another advocate to argue the case. 4. Legal Right of an Advocate to Claim Fees: The court examined whether an advocate could claim fees in the same proceedings without filing a separate suit. Precedents such as Basudeo Ram Govind v. Vachha and Co. (AIR 1955 Bombay 126) and Nawroji Pudamji Sardar v. Kanga and Sayani (AIR 1926 Bombay 272) supported the view that an advocate could recover fees in the proceedings where he was engaged. The court held that the respondent was entitled to claim his fees in the present proceedings. 5. Jurisdiction in a Suit Filed by a Third Party: The petitioners contended that the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction by passing the order in a suit filed by a third party. The court found that the trial judge had the jurisdiction to direct the payment of fees as the respondent was engaged in the same suit and had performed professional services. 6. Validity of the Order on Merits: The petitioners argued that the order could not be sustained on merits as there was no specific agreement or document to show that they had agreed to pay the fees awarded by the trial judge. The court noted that the respondent had submitted bills and communicated his charges, which were not disputed by the petitioners. The trial judge's determination of fees at Rs. 20,000 per day was found to be reasonable given the respondent's qualifications and expertise. 7. Proper Appreciation of Legal Precedents: The petitioners claimed that the trial judge did not properly appreciate the legal precedents cited. The court reviewed the relevant decisions and found that the trial judge had correctly applied the legal principles. The respondent's entitlement to fees was supported by various precedents, including The State v. Narsingha Naik (AIR 1955 Orissa 102) and Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thillaivillalan (AIR 1991 SC 1231). Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition on merits, confirming the trial judge's order directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 4.77 lacs towards professional fees and Rs. 50,000 towards costs. The court also awarded further special costs of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent for the harassment and dragging him into further litigation. The interim order was vacated, and the petitioners' request for an extension of interim relief was rejected.
|
