KAMINI MONI DEBI Vs. KHETTRA MOHUN GANGULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was heard ex parte on the 6th December last and was made absolute. The opposite party, who was the first defendant in the suit, subsequently applied to us to allow him an opportunity to make his submissions on the matter, and we acceded to his request as it transpired that, through no fault of his learned Vakil, he had not been represented at the original hearing. We have now heard the parties at considerable length and examined all the arguments addressed to us.

(2.) The petitioner sued to recover from the first defendant a sum of money which the latter had withdrawn from Court where it had been deposited by the plaintiff. He resisted the claim on the ground that he was entitled to retain the sum withdrawn as he had a lien upon the money to the extent of Rs. 100, for fees due under an agreement for professional services rendered. The Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed because fees were due from her to the first defendant and the latter was consequently entitled to appropriate the sum withdrawn from the Court in satisfaction of his dues.

(3.) This decision has been assailed on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that the agreement set up by the defendant is in contravention of Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, and is consequently of no avail whether the Pleader seeks to enforce the agreement as plaintiff or relies upon it in answer to the claim by the client. In support of this view, reliance has been placed upon the case of Sarat Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Chundra Kant Roy 25 C. 805.