HARJIT Vs. BACHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are fifteen revisions against the judgments and decree of the Munsiff Jeta-ran (exercising the powers of a Small Cause Judge) which raise an identical question and I propose to decide them by a single judgment.

(2.) THE opposite parties are legal practitioners and they were the plaintiffs in the Court below. THEir case was that they had been engaged by the petitioners in certain cases arising under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance, and the petitioners had executed Vakalatnamas by which they had agreed to pay the plaintiffs a fee of Rs. 30/- in each case. This engagement took place on the 2nd August, 1949. THE stipulation made in the Vakalatnamas was that the petitioners would pay the remuneration settled within one month of the 2nd August, 1949. THE case of the plaintiffs was that this was never paid. THE applications under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance were decided on the 22nd July, 1950, and they were all dismissed. THE opposite parties having not been paid their remuneration settled by the petitioners, they brought fifteen separate suits out of which the present revisions arise. THE defence was that the petitioners had settled only a composite fee of Rs. 100/- with the opposite parties for the purposes of their applications under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance and that they had paid it, and the story put forward by the plaintiffs that a separate fee of Rs. 30/- in each case had been settled was not correct. THE defendants also pleaded that the suits were barred by limitation. THE trial court repelled both the pleas and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. This has led to the present revisions.