Sarat Chandra Roy Chowdry vs Chandi Charan Mitra

This is a rule that was obtained by the Petitioner against a legal practitioner, who was engaged in a certain civil suit by the Petitioner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rungpore. There was no agreement between the parties, so far as we can gather, as to the fees that should be paid ; but, as we understand it, the Plaintiff sued for his fees on account of work done by him as a pleader for the Defendant. In this view of the matter sec. 28 of the Legal Practitioner''s Act, upon which the learned vakil for the Petitioner has so much relied, does not apply. The Court below has, however, given the Plaintiff a decree for the full amount of fees according to the scale laid down by the High Court under sec. 27 of the Legal Practitioner''s Act. We think that in this respect the Judge of the Small Cause Court was in error. What we think he ought to have done was to divide the fees allowable under the rules framed by the High Court, amongst the several pleaders engaged in the case. We understand that four gentlemen were employed, and we think the proper decree of the Court below ought to have been that the fees Rs. 130, which was allowable under the said rules, should be divided amongst the four pleaders that were engaged--or in other words that each of the pleaders should get one-fourth of the full fees, i.e., Rs. 32-8 each ; and inasmuch as the Plaintiff received Rs. 10 at the time when he was engaged, he could only recover the balance Rs. 22-8.

The decree of the Court below is to this extent modified.