SAUKAT ISMAIL PATEL Vs. B.C. GANDHI, ADVOCATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARTLY aggrieved by order dated 02/08/2001 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Bharuch in Misc. Civil Application No. 45 of 2001 in LAR No. 285 of 1986 insofar as it directs deduction of 4% of the award towards advocate fees, this Revision Application has been instituted praying to quash and set aside the said order. Learned Advocate Mr. B.C. Gandhi, Ankleshwar, Bharuch was engaged by the petitioner for conducting the above land reference proceedings. The award was passed and the matter was taken to the High Court. On High Court's rendering decision, the awarded amount came to be deposited before the District Court. Before the said amount can be disbursed, learned Advocate Mr. B.C. Gandhi moved an application for recovery of his fees at the rate of 4% of the total award as it was his case that he was an unpaid Advocate by the petitioner. While passing the impugned order, the Reference Court directed a payment of Rs. 9,98,435/ - to the petitioner. It also ordered the payment of 4% of the amount i.e. Rs. 41,600/ - to the Advocate.

(2.) DURING pendency of the revision application, learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi has expired and is being now represented by his legal heirs.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rules 9, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 and 32 of the Bar Council of India Rules and contended that the Advocates are obliged to raise the bills, maintain the account and recover the unpaid fees in accordance with the legal procedure including the civil suit, but cannot urge before the Court, which is seized with the case instituted by an Advocate at the instance of his client. He also contended that the learned Advocate was not entitled to stipulate for the fee contingent on the result of litigation or agree to share the proceeds thereof. The contention is that the Courts have no authority in law, unless the suit was filed, to order for the deposit of the Advocate fees. It was submitted that when the learned Advocate signs the Vakalatnama with the signature of his client, he enters into a contract and in case of breach of contract, the civil suit is the only remedy and no short -cut can be resorted to by moving the Court in the proceedings instituted at the instance of his client. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the fact that the amount was outstanding was disputed by the petitioner even in the Court below. However, without giving any legal opportunity to the petitioner, the Court presumed that there existed a contract for payment of fees at the rate of 4% of the award that may be made by the Court. It was also submitted that no documents or accounts in support of so -called agreement was produced before the Court below. He, therefore, submitted that the order giving the direction to pay 4% Advocate fees of the awarded amount is required to be quashed and set aside.