Skip to content


Mohanlal Sewlal, a Firm Vs. Probodh Krishna Shome - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 257 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Cal576,54CWN733
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 3, Rule 4
AppellantMohanlal Sewlal, a Firm
RespondentProbodh Krishna Shome
Appellant AdvocateChandra Sekhar Sen ; and Kamjit Mukherji, Advs.
Respondent AdvocatePanchanon Ghosh, ; Sudhanshu Kumar Sen ; and Ranajit Ghosh, Advs.
Cases ReferredPankaj Kumar v. Sudhir Kumar
Excerpt:
- .....of the president of the tribunal refusing the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the money lying before him through another advocate. the facts as they appear on record are very unfortunate.2. mr. shome was engaged by the petitioner as an advocate in connection with an acquisition case pending before the collector. a certain sum was awarded by the collector and a reference was filed through mr. shome. the reference succeeded in part. thereafter it appears disputes arose between mr. shome and the petitioner as regards the payment of the sums due to mr. shome as his fees for the work done by him in the acquisition case and in the reference case. the petitioner engaged another lawyer to withdraw the compensation money awarded to him which was lying before the president of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner against an order of the President of the Tribunal refusing the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the money lying before him through another advocate. The facts as they appear on record are very unfortunate.

2. Mr. Shome was engaged by the petitioner as an advocate in connection with an acquisition case pending before the Collector. A certain sum was awarded by the Collector and a reference was filed through Mr. Shome. The reference succeeded in part. Thereafter it appears disputes arose between Mr. Shome and the petitioner as regards the payment of the sums due to Mr. Shome as his fees for the work done by him in the acquisition case and in the reference case. The petitioner engaged another lawyer to withdraw the compensation money awarded to him which was lying before the President of the Tribunal. Mr. Shome made an application for payment to him of the sums which he claimed on account of his fees and costs. This application was rejected by the President of the Tribunal by his order dated 7th January 1949. Mr. Shome has not moved this Court in revision against the order of the President of the Tribunal refusing his prayer for payment of the sums due to him out of the money lying with the President. The petitioner, as we have said, has moved this Court in revision.

3. Mr. Sen, appearing for the petitioner, raises two points: in the first place, he contends that the service of Mr. Shome came to an end with the disposal of the reference case and as such he is no longer the advocate entitled to appear on behalf of the petitioner.

4. It is not necessary to express any final opinion on this point. It seems to us that prima facie Mr. Shome did not cease to be the advocate entitled to act on behalf of the petitioner the moment the reference case was disposed of.

5. The second contention raised by Mr. Sen is that even if Mr. Shome is still the advocate entitled to appear on behalf of the petitioner, there is no bar to the petitioner engaging another lawyer for withdrawing the money lying before the President of the Tribunal.

6. Mr. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, has referred us to two decisions, one in the case of Radhika Debi v. Ramasray Prosad, 9 pat. 865 : (A. I. R (18) 1931 pat, 137), and the other in Pankaj Kumar v. Sudhir Kumar, 37 C. W. N, 998: (A. I. R. (21) 1934 Cal. 58). It is true that before the Court grants the leave to discharge a lawyer under Order 8, Rule 4, Civil P. C., the Court is entitled to make suitable provisions for the payment of the sums due to the outgoing pleader in respect of the service rendered by him and in respect of the costs incurred by him on behalf of his client. We also agree with Mr. Ghosh that as a subterfuge the petitioner cannot engage another, lawyer without formally discharging the previous lawyer and without arranging for payment of the sums due to him. The sum alleged to be due to Mr. Shome on his bill submitted to the petitioner amounts to Rs. 1,324. Mr. Ghosh further states that certain additional costs have been incurred by Mr. Ghosh for contesting certain proceedings consequent on the application for withdrawal of the money through another lawyer. The propriety of the bill, or of the additional expenses so incurred is a matter which has to be decided in appropriate proceedings. We think the rights of Mr. Shome will be amply safeguarded if we direct that out of the compensation money lying with the president, a sum of Rs. 1,700 be retained in Court till the disposal of the legal proceeding which the opposite party may be advised to take to recover the sums due to him from the petitioner. These proceedings should be filed within three months from date. If no such proceedings are filed, the sum of RS. 1700 will also be paid out to the petitioner. The balance of the compensation money which is lying with the President may be allowed to be withdrawn by the lawyer which the petitioner has already engaged, or some other lawyer which the petitioner may choose to engage, provided he has the required authority to withdraw such money.

7. The rule is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

8. There will be no order as to costs.


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