RAJALA HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. MUNDLURU GANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises an interesting point of law, viz., whether in an appeal admitting of the appearance of both a senior and a junior practitioner, and the payment of fees to both, the senior practitioner should be on record in the appeal from the date fixed for the appearance of the respondent in the appeal before his fee can be claimed, as held by the learned District Judge of Anantapur.

(2.) THE facts were briefly these. A. S. No. 139 of 1947 was valued at Rs. 5,000, and, of course, admitted, under the Rules, of a senior and a junior practitioner appearing. The junior, Mr. T. Kodanda Rama Rao, was admittedly on record from the date fixed for the appearance of the petitioner, respondent 1. But, as is usually the case, when the stage for final hearing (and arguments) came, on 3 -4 -1948, he indented on a senior, Mr. P. M. Srinivasa Aiyangar, who admittedly appeared and argued the appeal. Ultimately, the learned District Judge had to consider whether Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar's fees, certified at Rs. 125, and Mr. Kodanda Rama Rao's fees, certified at Rs. 100 could both be passed. He held that as Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar had not been on record from the date fixed for the appearance of respondent 1 in the appeal, both the fees could not be allowed, but only Rs. 125, as per Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar's fee certificate, as he wanted to allow the higher of the two fees, as the maximum fee allowable even to one vakil was Rs. 350 in this appeal (which was valued at Rs. 5,000) and aa this was not objected to by the other side. There was both illogicality and incorrectness in this finding, as urged by Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar for the petitioner, before me. If Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar, as senior, should have appeared from the date fixed for the appearance of respondent 1 before the senior fee could be allowed, only Rs. 100, certified as received by Mr. Kodanda Rama Rao, the junior, should have been allowed, and not Rs. 125, as certified by Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar, the senior. Therein lay the illogicality. Nor could Mr. Srinivaaa Aiyangar, the senior be razed down to junior status, when there was a junior already on record, for fees purposes, by the learned District Judge.

(3.) IN the end, therefore, I am of opinion that, in the circumstances of this case, both the senior's and the junior's fees, allowable under the Rules, should have been allowed, i. e., RS. 125 for the senior, as certified by him, and Rs. 83 -5 -4 for the junior, being one -third of the fee allowable, which is Rs. 250 in this case. I am not impressed by Mr. P. M. Srinivasa Aiyangar's argument that the whole of Re. 100 should have been allowed for Mr. Kodanda Rama Rao, on the ground that he (Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar) was only the second vakil, and not merely Rs. 83 -5 -4. The matter has all along proceeded on the basis that) Mr. Kodanda Rama Rao was the junior vakil, and that he had called in Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar as senior. The petition before the learned District Judge was to amend the decree by including Rs. 125 the fee due to Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar, the senior practitioner in addition to the Rs. 100 already allowed to the junior, Mr. Kodanda Rama Rao. I cannot now allow the new theory that both the practitioners were equal colleagues and acted as one unit. Of course, two, or even twenty vakils may appear for one party, and may appear as one unit or team, all being equal and joint, there being no senior or junior. In such a case, only one joint fees certificate will usually be filed, and one of the vakils so appearing will not be called senior and one junior, as here, and only one fee can be allowed, and not both the senior and the junior fees. That is not the case here. So, Mr. Kodanda Rama Rao, the junior must lose the excess of Rs. 16 10 -8 claimed by him and for him, though, even if he is allowed the Rs. 100 in full, the total fees of junior and senior would only be RS. 225, or below Rs. 250, allowable even to one vakil under the rules. Of course, the senior, Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar, could have stipulated fee and received a fee of Rs. 250, and certified to it. Then both his fee of Rs. 250 and the junior fee of RS. 83 -5 -4 would have been allowable. But the junior could only be allowed a maximum fee of RS. 83 -5 -4 (1/3 of the fee allowable) though he received RS. 100 and certified to it. Rule 33 must be strictly enforced here also, though it will operate against the petitioner, as it was applied earlier when it operated for him.