AN ADVOCATE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-Company appointed the revision petitioner as its advocate for conducting its cases in the different courts in alleppey. It has instituted the present suit against its former advocate for recovery of amounts that may be found due to it on rendition of accounts by him of all sums paid by it to him as also of all sums realised by him on its behalf and of the amounts spent by him on its behalf. He resides and carries on his profession in Alleppey. THE respondent-Company instituted this suit in the munsiff's Court, Palghat within the jurisdiction of which Court it has a branch office. THE revision petitioner questioned that Court's jurisdiction to try the suit. That Court held that it has no jurisdiction. On appeal by the respondent-Company the learned District Judge held that the suit was properly instituted and that the Munsiff's Court, Palghat has jurisdiction to entertain the same. THE defendant has come up in revision.

(2.) ACCORDING to the lower appellate court the defendant's 'accountability to the Palghat branch of the Company is apparent from the correspondence between the parties', and therefore 'part of the cause of action at least had arisen within the limits of the Palghat Munsiff's Court'. The learned District Judge then proceeds to say that'if any cause of action has arisen at Palghat, by virtue of Explanation II to S. 20 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 the Company shall be deemed to carry on business at Palghat' and that therefore 'the Palghat Munsiff's Court has jurisdiction to try the instant suit. '

(3.) THIS case concerns one of the obligations of the advocate to his client, perhaps, the most important, from the client's point of view. The client pays an advocate moneys for meeting the expenses of litigation. The advocate may also realise amounts as fruits of litigation on behalf of the client. What is the nature of his liability to the client as regards these moneys. It appears that formerely it was thought that an advocate is a debtor so far as payments received by him for expenses are concerned, and a bailee, in respect of sums realised by him on behalf of the client as fruits of litigation. In re a High Court Vakil XX MLJ 494 Sri P. R. Sundara Aiyar (later justice) representing the Vakils' Association said as follows: "a Vakil who is asked to sell land and who receives the purchase money ought to treat that money distinct from other money and from out fees as it stands in a different position. Outfees are considered as debts. Misappropriation of such purchase money even temporarily, whether the Vakil acted as Vakil or not, is not justified. " Referring to this decision Sri. K. V. Krishnaswami Aiyer in his lectures 'professional Conduct and Advocacy' 2nd Edn. 1945 at p. 163 says as follows: "as regards amounts received by counsel on behalf of the client, the decision in the case above quoted, which ruled that the advocate was not entitled to use the money even temporarily, shows that he was not a debtor but only a bailee. I do not think, therefore, that it need still be considered as a matter of doubt. It cannot be that the advocate is a bailee for one purpose and a debtor for another. Regarding moneys received for out-fees, I do not see why any difference should exist in respect of the legal relation between counsel and client. If anything, the fact that the moneys are handed to counsel for a specific purpose ought to decide in favour of his character as a bailee. If he were merely a debtor he ought to be entitled to make use of the money which would only result in his having a civil liability for it. The obligation to keep the client's money available at any time for use on behalf of the client can only be consistent with his being a bailee thereof. Further, the advice that is generally given to keep the client's out-fees money in a separate account can only be understood as meaning that the advocate is not entitled to use it, which means again that he is a bailee and not a debtor. "