DINKU KHATI Vs. KAMAL KUMARI SUBBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal assails the judgment and decree both dated 29.10.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, (Special Division-II) East Sikkim at Gangtok in Money Suit No.09 of 2016 (for short 'the suit') filed on 26.04.2016.

(2.) The case of the appellant in the suit is that she is a practicing Advocate who had been engaged by the respondents to appear before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati, the Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata as well as the High Court of Guwahati. In the plaint the appellant has given a detailed history of how she was engaged by them from the year 2009 onwards. The appellant has also averred the details of the various professional engagements from 08.05.2012 till 18.07.2014. The averments in the plaint contours through the period 2009 to 2014 and how the respondents had sought time to pay her professional fees due to their poor financial condition assuring her that it would be done when their financial condition improved. According to the appellant a total amount of Rs.10,75,000/- was payable on account of her professional engagements over the period by the respondents. The details of the appellant's professional engagements with specified dates have been mentioned in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the plaint. In paragraph 31 the appellant averred that the cause of action first arose on 26.03.2012, next on 20.04.2012, thereafter on 21.04.2012 and 03.05.2012 and finally when she demanded her fees through the legal notice. The legal notice is dated 02.06.2014.

(3.) The respondents filed their written statements. The respondent no.1 contested the suit on the ground that the fact about the appellant's professional engagement was not known to her. The respondent no.2 however, admitted the appellant's professional engagement. The respondent no.2 stated that Rs.5,000/- per day as legal fees besides accommodation was agreed upon; however, due to financial problems the respondent no.2 could not even pay her travel and accommodation charges; immediately on settlement of the case, the respondent no.1 in collusion with another received huge amounts of money and as a result the legal fees could not be settled. The respondent no.2 confirmed that the appellant had appeared and rendered her legal service as mentioned in paragraph 20 of the plaint. With regard to the averments made by the appellant in paragraph 21 of the plaint the respondent no.2 had an issue about the quantum of fees payable but not on the fact that she had been engaged professionally.