STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. P RAM SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. S. No. 1 of 1969 on the file of the Chief Judges Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, at Secunderabad was instituted, in forma pauperis, by Smt. Nasreen Banu and others for declaration of their title and possession of 503 Acres 36 Guntas of land comprised in Mallepalli locality, Hyderabad City or, in the alternative, for compensation in a sum of Rs. 85,35,660.00. Defendants 1 and 2 to the suit were (1) Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government, Hyderabad, and (ii) Collector, Hyderabad. At that time, Sri. M. S. Rajalingam (respondent in CCCA No. 181/83 and plaintiff in O. S. No. 1071/82) was working as the Government Pleader in that Court. He filed the appearance on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, and filed written statement on their behalf. He was appearing in the suit up to the stage when issues were framed. Thereafter, he ceased to be the Government Pleader. In his place, Sri. B. S. Palnitkar was appointed as the Government Pleader, and he was appeared on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. He conducted the trial in the suit. Before the suit was taken up for final arguments. Sri B. S. Palnitkar died (his legal representatives are respondents in CCCA No. 182/83 - plaintiffs in O. S. No. 793/82), and Sri P. Ramshah (respondent in CCCA No. 179/82 - Plaintiff in O. S. 1016/80) was appointed as the Government Pleader. Sri P. Ramshah not only addressed the final arguments in the suit, but also conducted a part of the trial after it was re-opened. The suit was ultimately dismissed with costs. As per the decree prepared by the Court, the plaintiffs were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,55,866/- to defendants 1 and 2 by way of costs. This amount represented the Pleaders (fees) calculated as per the Advocates Fees Rules.

(2.) After the suit was disposed of Sri. P. Ramshah obtained a copy of the judgment and decree in the suit, and sent it to the Collector, Hyderabad District along with his letter (Ex. A-6). In this letter, Sri P. Ramshah mentioned that three Governments Pleaders, namely (i) Sri. M. S. Rajalingam, (ii) Sri. B. S. Palnitkar, and (iii) himself, had appeared in the suit and that, as per the normal practice, Sri M. S. Rajalingam is entitled to half the fee, while Sri. B. S. Palnitkar and himself are entitled to 1/4 each. He requested the Collector to sanction and pay him the one-fourth amount of Rs. 8,55,866.00 towards the fee. Since no action was taken by the Collector and his fee was not sanctioned, Mr. Ramshah wrote another letter (Ex. A-12) reminding the Collector of his claim and requesting him to immediately sanction his fee. He was being told by the Collector from time to time that the matter is under consideration of the appropriate authorities. On 12-8-1979 Mr. Ramshah issued a notice under S. 80 P. C. (A-27) claiming 1/4 of the said amount, and intimating the government that he would file a suit for recovery of the said amount after the expiry of two months from the said notice. On 3-8-1980 Mr. Ramshah filed O. S. 1016/80 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,38,735-36 Ps. He impleaded the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary, and State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. The Collector, Hyderabad District, was impleaded as the 3rd respondent; Sri. M. S. Rajalingam was impleaded as the 4th defendant, and the legal-representatives of late Sri B. S. Palnitkar as defendants 5 to 9. Defendants 1 to 3 contested the suit. Their defence was that, O. S. 71/1969 was a speculative suit filed in forma pauperis and that, the Government has not recorded anything towards costs awarded to it in that suit. It was submitted that Sri. P. Ramshah did not put in his own efforts to argue the case, but merely adopted the arguments of the learned Advocate-General, put forward in a similar suit, O. S. No. 27/1963, disposed of earlier, and that, having regard to the quantum of work done, the Collector has recommended the sanction of a sum of Rs. 1,06,958.24 Ps., to Sri M. S. Rajalingam and Rs. 53,479-12 Ps, each to Sri B. S. Palnitkar and Sri P. Ramshah. It was contended that , under R. 36 of the Law Officers Rules the Government has a discretion to reduce the fees in appropriate cases and that, before the Government could take a decision in the matter, the plaintiff has rushed to the Court. The 4th defendant and defendants 5 to 9 filed written statements supporting the plaintiffs case. They also requested the Court to pass a decree in their favour for one-half and one-fourth respectively of the suit costs awarded in O. S. 71/1969. They expressed their readiness to pay the appropriate Court-fees in case such a decree is passed.

(3.) The learned VI Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, decreed by Sri. P. Ramshahs suit. He agreed that under R. 36 of the Law Officers Rules, the Government does have the power to reduce the fees; but, applying guideline No. 1 contained in the said Rule, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff, Sri. P. Ramshah, is entitled to 1/4 of the total fees as claimed by him. The learned Judge observed further that, the fact that O. S. 71/1969 was a pauper suit or that the Government could not recover anything from the plaintiffs in that suit by way of costs, is irrevalent on the question of fee payable to the plaintiffs. He was of the opinion that, there was nothing to show that the said suit was a speculative one. Reference was made to R. 38 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, which prohibits an advocate from accepting less than the fee tarable (sic) under the Rules, when the client is able to pay the same. He awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the suit amount, as well as the suit costs to the plaintiff. So far as the claim of defendants 4 to 9 was concerned, the learned VI Addl. Judge observed that no relief can be granted to them in this suit and that, their only remedy may to file separate suits of their own. CCCA. No. 179/82 is preferred by the State against the judgment and decree in Sri. P. Ramshahs suit.