I.P. Subbaiah vs S.M. Sahayam

Heard both sides.

The revision petitioner in O.S. No. 5479 of 1995 has questioned the order of the Trial Court directing him to accept a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the respondent towards outstanding legal professional charges and to handover the file to the party. It is represented that he has accepted the said amount and handed over the file to the party. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon a decision in Damordardass Agarwal and Others Vs. R. Badrilal and Others, , to direct the Trial Court to hold the summary enquiry and to determine what is the fee payable to him by the respondent. It is held in the above said decision that a "leave of the Court is necessary to terminate the appointment of the Advocate" in a case if the Advocate has not given his consent in the Court as to pass appropriate order while granting leave to the client to determine the appointment of the Advocate. It is further held in the same decision that "there is practice in the High Court whereunder the Court is having powers to pass appropriate orders directing payment of fees to the Advocate if his service as an Advocate is terminated". In the present case since no such enquiry has been conducted by the Trial Court, the Trial Court was not right in directing the revision petitioner to receive only Rs. l,OOO/- towards his fees, though the revision petitioner has handed over the records to the party still he is entitled to seek for determination of the fees payable to him before terminating his appointment as Advocate, there is no specific order of termination of his vakalath in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Though the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no such enquiry need be held in the present case since the Counsel has already accepted Rs. 1,000/- towards his fees and handed over the records, since he has not given his consent for terminating his vakalath and since no order has been passed by the Trial Court terminating his vakalath, the revision petitioner is entitled to seek for determination of fees payable to him by the respondent before terminating the vakalath.

The revision petition is therefore allowed and the Trial Court is directed to conduct a summary enquiry as provided under Order 3, Rule 4 of the CPC and to determine the fees which the revision petitioner is entitled under the relevant provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act before passing orders terminating his vakalath by the respondent.