Skip to content


Chundra Kanta Roy Vs. Sarat Chunder Roy Chowdhry and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR25Cal805
AppellantChundra Kanta Roy
RespondentSarat Chunder Roy Chowdhry and ors.
Excerpt:
legal practitioners' act (xviii of 1879), sections 27, 28, 29 - suit by a pleader to recover fee from his client--contract act, section 70--provincial small cause courts act, section 25. - .....pleader for the defendants.2. there was no written agreement within the terms of section 28 of the legal practitioners' act, 1879, and the fees claimed are not within section 27.3. the judge of the small cause court has referred to two judgments in i.l.r. 9 mad. 375, and i.l.r. 12 all, 169, and upon these he has held that the plaintiff's suit, without a written agreement, is maintainable notwithstanding section 28 of the legal practitioners' act.4. it seems us that the allahabad case is decidedly against that view. the act, (sic) it, contemplates that legal practitioners shall be entitled to received section 27 the amount payable under certain rules prepared within the (sic) section, and that they shall not be entitled to claim anything further (sic) of section 28 are observed. section.....
Judgment:

Prinsep, J.

1. The plaintiff sued before the Subordinate Judge of Rungpore exercising the powers of a Small Cause Court for certain fees for appearing and acting as a pleader for the defendants.

2. There was no written agreement within the terms of Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879, and the fees claimed are not within Section 27.

3. The Judge of the Small Cause Court has referred to two judgments in I.L.R. 9 Mad. 375, and I.L.R. 12 All, 169, and upon these he has held that the plaintiff's suit, without a written agreement, is maintainable notwithstanding Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners' Act.

4. It seems us that the Allahabad case is decidedly against that view. The Act, (sic) it, contemplates that legal practitioners shall be entitled to received Section 27 the amount payable under certain rules prepared within the (sic) section, and that they shall not be entitled to claim anything further (sic) of Section 28 are observed. Section 28 requires that there s in possession of should be a written agreement signed by the client and that it should be filed within a certain specified time in a particular Court. The sections that follow all refer to Section 28, and, as we understand it, to nothing else, for they all refer to 'such agreement,' which is an agreement within the terms of Section 28. It seems to us that in enacting these provisions the Legislature deliberately intended in respect of agreements between such parties to provide definitively for them, and even to go so far as to rescind anything in the Contract Act or any previous legislation relating to the subject. We agree with the learned Judges of the Allahabad Court that the intention appears to be as stated by them in the judgment reported in I.L.R. 12 All., 169 (see page 174).

5. We have had cited to us several decisions of the Madras Court, in which that Court, notwithstanding the express terms of the Legal Practitioners' Act, has applied Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. We are unable to follow those decisions for reasons already stated. The judgement of the Small Cause Court Judge, therefore, is, in our opinion, contrary to the terms of the Act and must be set aside.

6. This order will apply to Rule No. 1118. We make no order as to costs in either of these cases.

7. Nos. 1111, 1113 to 1117 and 1119. The learned Advocate-General who appears for petitioners abandons these Rules on its being shown that the fees given are only such as can be legally obtained under Section 27. These Rules will be discharged.

8. We make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //