INDIA OVERSEAS BANKKOMARALINGAM Vs. G RAMALINGA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant case, the only point raised on behalf of the petitioner by Miss B. Dominique is that the fees ought to have been awarded as per the provisions of the Rules framed under the Legal Practitioners' Fees Rules, 1973 (R. O. C. No. 1032/64-F 1).

(2.) By virtue of the powers conferred by Art. 227 of the Constitution of India read with S. 27 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879 (Central Act XVIII of 1879), and all other powers there unto enabling and in supersession of all rules relating to the fees payable to Legal Practitioners' and incorporated in Sec. C, Chapter X, Part II of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders Vol. I (1941 Edition), the High Court had farmed the rules (R. O. C. No. 1032/64. F1) and these rules are known as Legal Practitioners' Rules, 1973. These had come into vogue by virtue of the previous approval of the Governor of Tamil Nadu. Rule 3 (2) (v) provides that if the amount or value of the suit exceeds Rs. 50,000, but does not exceed Rupees 1,00,000. fee should be calculated on Rs. 50,000, as above and on the remainder at 2 per cent. There is a proviso under cl. (c) of sub-cl. (2) of S. 3 of these Rules which provides that in the case of suits the are mentioned in cl. (2), namely, original suits, when such suits are settled, withdrawn, compromised, decided on confession of judgment or dismissed for default after the commencement of trial but before judgment, the fee payable shall be one half of the fee calculated under that clause, subject to the minimum prescribed and to a maximum of Rs. 1000/-.

(3.) In the instant case, it is submitted by Miss B. Dominique, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the affidavit accompanying the petition I. A.No. 865 of 1979 in O. S. 60 of 1978 filed before the court of the learned Subordinate Judge Udumalpet, it was specifically mentioned that the defendants have submitted to a decree, after the commencement of trial and before judgment, that the trial commenced on 15th June, 1979 that exhibits were marked and P. W. 1 was examined in chief and that it was adjourned for further evidence to 18th June, 1979. It is also stated in the affidavit that on 18th June, 1979, the defendants submitted to a decree. Therefore it is contended by the lower court in O. S. No. 60 of 1978 after commencement of trial but before judgment.