The High Court (Westropp, C.J, and Birdwood, J.,) in making the rule absolute on the 8th February, 1881, gave the following judgment:—
Westropp. C.J:— This case differs materially from that of Ramchandra Chintaman v. Kalu Raju, inasmuch as the acceptance of the vakalatnama by the pleader (the plaintiff in this case) and the execution of the agreement sued upon, were contemporaneous, and the vakalatnama was not filed by the pleader until after the execution of the agreement. The agreement, it is true, is called an inam chithi, but it was evidently given as the sole intended remuneration for the professional services of the pleader; and, looking at act i of 1856, sec. 7, we cannot say that such an agreement is illegal. The words “we have given you a vakilpatra” in the past tense occur in it, but the report of the Subordinate Judge and the evidence taken by him lead us to the conclusion already expressed that the acceptance of the vakilpatra (or vakalatnama) and the execution of the inam chithi were simultaneous, and constituted one transaction. Although we cannot designate the remuneration as extortionate, yet we regard it as high, when the amount sued for in the case in which the plaintiff was to act as pleader for the defendants was only Rs. 310, and we feel no disposition to encourage agreements which give to pleaders a personal interest in the litigation of their clients. We must set aside the decrees of the Courts below, and direct a new trial. But we give no costs to the plaintiff either of his original suit or of the appeal, or in this Court.
Decrees set aside.