SRI RAJAH CHITTI BABU VIZIARAMA GAJAPATI RAJU ALIAS POOSAPATI VIZIARAMA GAJAPATHI RAJU, MAHARAJAH MANYASULTAN BAHADUR OF VIZIANAGARAM, BY HIS MUKTYAR, G APPAYYA Vs. DVNARASINGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam in a suit brought by the plaintiff, D.V. Narasinga Rao, a Vakil, to recover remuneration for work done by him for the defendant, the Maharaja of Vizayanagaram, in connection with the suits questioning the defendant s right to the zemindari and also for other miscellaneous work aboutwhich there is no question in this appeal.

(2.) Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar for the defendant-appellant has questioned the amount awarded by the Subordinate Judge. Two legal objections were raised but not very seriously pressed. It was said that the plaintiff could not claim remuneration at a higher scale than is made payable by a party in respect of his adversary s Advocate, Pleader, Vakil or Attorney under the Legal Practitioners Act. Both on the language of the Act and on the decisions of this Court it seems to me impossible to contend that the Legal Practitioners Act imposes any limitation upon the fees which are recoverable by practitioners from their own clients. It is not alleged that there was any agreement such as is contemplated by Section 28 of the Act between the plaintiff and the defendant: and in the absence of such an agreement the Court has to discharge what is the function of the Taxing Officer in suits in the English Courts snd to decide what is a fair and reasonable remuneration for the workdone.

(3.) Next, it was suggested that the suit was barred by limitation. The contention was that the case was not governed By Article 84 which relates to suits, "by an Attorney or Vakil for his costs of a suit or a particular business, there being no express agreement as to the time when such costs are to be paid," and that the present claim could not be said to be a claim for costs of a suit, because it was said the expression costs of a suit must be limited to out of pocket expenses incurred by the Practitioner. We do not think that there is any foundation for that contention. It must be taken, therefore, that the suit was not barred by limitation.