CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. J MARIA JESU KENNADY J ANTHONIAMMAL R MADASAMY MARGARET ALIAS MARGARET MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is filed challenging the fair and decretal orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar in I.A.No.305 of 19 97 in O.S.No.196 of 1996 dated 5.8.1997.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the nationalised bank and as plaintiff, the bank filed the said suit on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar for recovery of the mortgage money due from the respondents/defendants on the basis of the registered mortgage deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.7,50,600 -85 with interest and costs. A preliminary decree was passed on 13.1 1.1996 wherein the Pleader's fees had been calculated as per Rule 3(2 )(a) of the Legal Practitioners Fees Rules, 1973 and a sum of Rs.10,0 56/- towards senior advocate's fees and Rs.3,352/- as Junior advocate's fees had been taxed as per the cost memo filed by the plaintiff, even though a sum of Rs.16,656/- and Rs.5,559/- had been claimed by the plaintiff towards the fees payable by the defendants to the senior advocate and the junior advocate respectively. Hence the revision petitioner was constrained to file the said application to award the schedule fees in accordance with the provision under Rule 3(2)(b) of the said Rules. The learned Subordinate Judge having analysed the facts and the provisions of law dismissed the application. Hence, the revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at the outset that the trial Court was not correct in holding that the legal practitioner's fee in this case has be calculated under Rule 3(2)(a) which is applicable only with regard to suits for money based on negotiable instrument and loan. Moreover, he has contended that the proper provision is Rule 3(2)(b) which is applicable to the suits based on mortgage deed. He has also pointed out in this connection that the procedure followed by the Subordinate Courts in this regard is not uniform and therefore it has become necessary to decide whether the advocate fees taxed by the Court below is in accordance with the said Rules.