PREM KUMAR Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rfa 341/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 12443/2017 (under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC)

(2.) At the outset it may be noted that whereas the appellant/plaintiff led evidence and proved his case, no evidence was led by the respondent/defendant, and nor did the respondent/defendant cross-examined the appellant/plaintiff. In fact, the respondent/defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.2014. The respondent/defendant moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC which was dismissed as withdrawn and another application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was then dismissed on 18.4.2016.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleads that he was engaged as an Advocate by the respondent/defendant to appear in two cases in the High Court being Crl. M.C. Nos. 3576/2010 titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Uma Shankar and Others and 3748/2010 titled as Raj Kumar Vs. States against the judgments passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Nos. 38/2010 and 39/2010. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the respondent/defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.55, 000/- for each case for drafting and filing of the two criminal petitions in the High Court and also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25, 000/- per hearing. Appellant/plaintiff pleaded that only a sum of Rs.10, 000/- each was paid for the two cases but the respondent/defendants did not pay the balance fees for drafting and filing of Rs.45, 000/- for each case and also did not pay charges for hearings in which the appellant/plaintiff appeared in the High Court in the aforesaid two criminal M.C.