Mohendra Lal Biswas v. Akhil Chandra Pakrashi

1. In this case the petitioner, who is a pleader, sues his client for fees for professional services, basing I his claim, it is said, on Section 70 of the Contract Act. The lower Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that no action lies in accordance with the rulings reported in the cases of Kamini Moni Debi v. Khetra, Mohan Ganguly1 and Sarat Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Chundry Kanta Roy . [1898] 25 Cal. 805.. If there is any contract between the parties, it is certain that the plaintiff had no case, because there, is no such contract as will satisfy the provisions of Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act. If, on the other hand, the pleader did the work merely on the understanding that he would, in the ordinary course of events, be paid, it might be that he had a good claim under Section 7(0) of the Contract Act, and on such as would make it unnecessary to produce a written contract under the Legal Practitioners Act.

2. A rule has been issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the lower Court should not be set aside on the ground that Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act, does not apply to this case. The petitioner has put in an affidavit to show that there was no contract in this case. The judgment of the lower Court gives no indication whether or not this was the case.

3. The opposite party has put in an affidavit in which he says that there was a definite contract that the pleader should be paid at the rate of Rs. 10 per day and he puts in also a receipt for Rs. 10 for the day's attendance in Court which is signed by the pleader. Under these circumstances, it has not been shown to us that there was no contract between the parties. It is therefore not open to us to say that Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act, does not apply and consequently we cannot interfere in this matter.

4. The rule is accordingly discharged with costs, the hearing-fee being two gold mohurs.

V.B/R.K

5. Rule discharged.