State Bank of India vs Union of India (UOI)

Motilal B. Naik, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 12-8-1991 passed in LA. No. 380 of 1991 in OS. No. 378 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge''s Court. Guntur, the present revision petition is filed.

Petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed OS. No. 378 of 1991 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,13,044/- together with interest and costs from respondents- defendants 1 to 5. The Court below decreed the suit as against defendants 1 to 3 and 5 with interest and costs while dismissing the suit as against defendant No. 4 with costs. On the basis of the Judgment and decree., the learned counsel for 4th respondent-defendant filed a fee memo claiming Rs. 47,280/- Aggrieved by the said fee Memo I. A.No. 380/91 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC seeking amendment of the decree in respect of costs of Rs. 47,280/- towards the claim filed by the counsel for the 4th respondent defendant. The ground urged by the petitioner-plaintiff before the Court below was that the petitioner-plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 9,25,000/- in the suit as against the 4th respondent defendant and, therefore, once the suit is dismissed against the 4th respondent-defendant with costs, as per the Advocates'' Fee Rules, the entitlement of advocate''s fee has to be restricted only to the extent of liability claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff and any claim over and above the liability against the 4th respondent defendant is illegal.

The Court below having examined this aspect held that the petitioner- plaintiff has not made out any reasons to grant the relief sought for, inasmuch as the suit claim is Rs. 45,13,044/- and the court-fee was paid on the said claim and there is no rationale in denying the costs to the counsel for the 4th respondent-defendant on the value of the entire suit claim when the petitioner- plaintiff has paid fee to their advocate on the value of the entire suit claim.

Sri N. Ramamohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, states that when the suit claim is restricted to Rs. 9,25,000/- as against respondent-defendant No. 4., the court rejecting the application filed under Sections 151 and 152 CPC for restricting the advocate''s fee on the liability is contrary to law and there is a manifest error committed by the Court below and, therefore, he seeks indulgence of this court. Sri Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, contends that though the liability fixed on the 4th respondent defendant in the suit is Rs. 9,25,000/- the petitioner-plaintiff sought a decree against all the respondents-defendants jointly and severally and the suit claim is undoubtedly Rs. 45,13,044/- and the petitioner plaintiff cannot escape from the embergo of payment of costs on the value of the entire suit claim.

It is evident from paragraph 7 of the plaint that the petitioner-plaintiff sought a decree against all the respondents-defendants jointly and severally and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner-plaintiff to say that the liability of the 4th respondent-defendant is only Rs. 9,25,000/-. For instance had the petitioner-plaintiff succeeded in getting a decree as against the 4th respondent- defendant also, he would have set up an execution petition for recovery of the entire decretal amount against the 4th respondent defendant also, as the liability is joint and several. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the logic pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect. In Kaushalya Pahwa Vs. Ram Lal Suri, the Delhi High Court, considering the aspect of awarding costs, held that award of costs is the discretion of the Court and cannot be interfered in revision u/s 115 C.P.C. I have no hesitation to sail with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court. In my view, therefore, the court below has rightly rejected the contention raised by the petitioner-plaintiff.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.