IMPROVEMENT TRUST ROPAR Vs. S TEJINDER SINGH GUJRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) This matter was adjourned on the last occasion for settlement. The learned counsel for the respondents states that he has not received any instructions in the matter from his clients,

(3.) We find that the High court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-advocate for the recovery of his professional fees from the petitioner. No writ petition can lie for recovery of an amount under a contract. The High court was clearly wrong in entertaining and allowing the petition. There is no separate law for the advocates. In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 26-7-19.91 and dismiss the writ petition. The result is that the letters patent appeal pending before the Division bench of the High court would also come to an end. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.