BILAS SINGH AND CO Vs. SIKHA RANI DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had engaged Sm. Sikha Rani Dutta, who is opposite party No.1 in this Rule, as one of its lawyers in an arbitration proceedings against Union of India and also in Title Suit No.33 of 1959 of the Fourth Court, Learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore, which arose out of the said arbitration proceedings. The petitioner, therefore, filed an execution case for realization of the sum awarded in the said arbitration proceedings. The Union of India had deposited the decretal due in Executing Court. The petitioner, through Smt. Dutta, had filed a petition praying for issue of a payment order in its name. The Court below y its order dated 15th November, 1973 had passed an order directing payment of the said award money. But before the said sum was withdrawn, on 1st December, 1973 the petitioner filed an application stating that it now wanted to revoke the power executed in favour of Smt. Sikha Rani Dutta in the said Title Execution Case. It, accordingly, prayed that the Vakalatnama dated 1st August, 1973 in her favour be revoked. On 4th December, 1973 Smt. Sikha Rani Dutta filed a statement before the Executing Court claiming that Rs.5000/- was still due as her fees. On 5th December, 1973 the Executing Court ordered that the decree-holder be permitted to terminate the appointment of Mr. Dutta as its lawyer subject to payment of her legitimate dues. It accordingly, directed both the petitioner and Mrs. Dutta to submit their respective accounts. According to the Executing Court since Mr. Dutta claimed Rs.5000/- as her fees, the decree-holder would be entitled to withdraw the decretal amount after leaving a sum of Rs.5000/- in deposit. The petitioner did not come up against the said order. On 12th December, 1973 Smt. Sikha Rani Dutta filed a statement of her claim. In the meantime, decree-holder, who is petitioner before me, also filed an application before the Court below praying that in the circumstances mentioned in its application necessary orders be passed for payment of the balance sum of Rs.5000/-, which was lying with the Court in terms of the order No.12 dated 5th December, 1973. It may be noted that on 8th December, 1973 the Court had already issued the payment order for 9,19,075/- in favour of the decree-holder petitioner through its lawyer Arun Kumar Deb. I understand the said sum has been already been already received by the petitioner.

(2.) The Trial Court by its order No.21 dated 11th February, 1974 refused the prayer of the decree-holder for permission to withdraw the said balance sum of Rs.5000/-. Further the Court fixed 23rd March, 1974 for hearing in respect of the accounts filed by Mrs. Dutta and the decree-holder petitioner. The petitioner has obtained the present Rule against the said order dated 11th February, 1974.

(3.) In this case the subject-matter of dispute is the sum of Rs.5000/- claimed by Mr. Dutta as her professional fees and which is disputed by the opposite party. Therefore, in my view, the present Rule is maintainable before the Single Bench. The rest of the amount involved in the execution case is not in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application in question should have been valued at over Rs.5000/-.