T JAGAN MOHAN Vs. S VASUDEV SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.C.S No. 1171 of 1980 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad was decreed on 28th January, 1981. The defendant to that suit filed C.R P. No. 1024 of 1981 in this Court. I allowed that C.R.P. on 17th September, 1981 with costs. The Taxing Offier fixed Rs. 150 as the costs payable by the respondent in the aforesaid Civil Revision Petition. Now against that order of the Taxing Officer this Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under rule 15 of the Advocates' Fees Rules challenging the correctness of the decision of the Taxing Officer and contending that the costs payable by him cannot exceed Rs. 25.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondent, and the Government Pleader in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

(3.) Although the arguments put forward herein ranged widely, the ultima is rather simple. That question is what is the proper advocate's fee that should be allowed in a Civil Revision Petition filed against a small cause decree. There is no statute directly governing this matter. The Advocates' Fees Rules made by this Court in Roc. No. 889/66-B-1 are the only statutory provisions that are relevant for rendering a judgment on the question. Those rules called Advocates' Fees Rules are in two park. Part I of the Rules deals with the fee payable to advocates in the Courts Subordinate to the High Court. Part II deals with the fee payable to advocates on the Appellate Side of the High Court. Part II contains just only three or four rules relevant for the purpose. Of them, rule 12 deals with the fee payable to advocates in first appeals and second appeals. That Rule speaks of appeals from original decrees and appellate decrees. As we are not concerned have either with a first appeal or a second appeal, no further reference need be made to that Rule. Rule 14 is equally irrelevant and all parties agree that it has no bearing on the present controversy. Rule 15 of the Advocates' Fees Rules on which Sri Sarma placed strong reliance deals with interlocutory applications in pending appeals or other matters and other miscellaneous applications. That rules does not concern itself with the question of fees in a small cause C. R. P. Rule 16 deals with a situation where special fee like higher fee or two sets of fees are claimed by advocates on the ground of importance or intricacy of the matter. Then, we are left with only rule 13. That Rule also will not apply. That Rule is in these words: "In appeals from orders, re-hearing on review, and other miscellaneous cases (not being applications provided for in rule 15) fees are payable on the following scale: Rule 13 deals with what are called civil miscellaneous appeals filed against orders of the lower Court, review applications and other miscellaneous cases. It appears to me that a small cause revision petition like all other revision petitions should be treated as falling under the residuary category of "other miscellaneous cases". This interpretation of rule 13 is partly for reasons of necessity and only fractionally for reasons, of its language. If rule 13 is also held inapplicable, we find in the whole Advocates' Fees Rules no other provision regulating the advocate's fee in civil revision cases. For the purpose of these Fees Rules, Part II of the Advocates' Fees Rules, appeals to have divided the matters coming before the High Court into first appeals and second appeals which are dealt with by rule 12, interlocutory applications which are dealt with by rule 15, and civil miscellaneous appeals, review applications and other miscellaneous cases which are dealt with by rule 13. In view of the fact that a civil revision petition cannot be called as an appeal either from an original decree or from an appellate decree, nor can it be called an interlocutory application in a pending appeal or other matter, it appears to me that the only applicable provision to this civil revision petition is rule 13. If so, the advocate's fee taxable would be an amount not exceeding 3 per cent, on the first Rs. 5,000 of the value of the claim. I agree that the words "value of the claim" in a revision petition are capable of being intellectually debated upon. But a Court of Law should promote peace not strife. I therefore take the meaning of those words appropriate for the present controversy. In view of the fact that the amount which is involved in the aforementioned small cause suit is about Rs. 1,400 the order of the taxing officer fixing Rs. 150 as he Advocate's fee cannot be said to have exceeded the scale of fee fixed by rule 13 (1) of the Advocates Fees Rules