Subject matter of these three revision petitions is condition imposed by the lower Court for payment of remuneration at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month from 01.01.2007 till the date of discharge as an Advocate for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The 4th respondent herein is one of the four advocates who appeared for the plaintiff in these three suits in the lower Court. The plaintiff filed petitions in three suits under Order III Rule 4 C.P.C for discharging the 4th respondent herein as the plaintiff’s advocate. While allowing the said petitions, the lower Court imposed a rider that the plaintiff should pay the 4th respondent’s remuneration at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month after deduction of T.D.S from 01.01.2007 till the date of his discharge.

2) Sheet anchor of the revision petitioner and senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is decisions of the Supreme Court in R.D. SaxenaV. Balram Prasad Sharma (2000)7 Supreme Court Cases 264) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd V. A.K. Saxena (2004)1 Supreme Court Cases 117). On the other hand, the 4th respondent in person contended that the lower Court is within its legal jurisdiction to direct the plaintiff to pay remuneration payable to him while discharging him as one of the plaintiff’s advocates. He relied upon A.V. Sundaramurthy Chettiar V. S. Muthaiah Mudaliar (AIR (32) 1945 Madras 190) of Division Bench of the Madras High Court and Damodardass Agarwal V. R. Badrilal (AIR 1987 (A.P) 254) of Division Bench of this Court in support of his contention.

3) The above Madras decision lays down that it would be proper that the advocates on record should be paid their full fees before change of vakalat is sanctioned and that change of vakalat should be declined until satisfactory arrangements have been made to that end. This decision is not helpful to the 4th respondent since the Madras High Court did not grant remuneration or fees or professional charges to the advocate before sanctioning change of advocate. The Madras High Court declined to sanction change of advocate until arrangements have been made for payment of legal remuneration to the advocate. There cannot be any doubt that legal professionals are entitled for their due and agreed remuneration from their clients. But the question in these revision petitions is as to how the said remuneration or amount should be sanctioned by the Courts or should be claimed by the legal professionals.

4) In Damodardass Agarwal (4 supra), Division Bench of this Court held that there is consistent practice in this Court whereunder the Court is empowered to pass appropriate order directing payment of fees to the advocate before his services as an advocate are terminated. The Division Bench also upheld right to lien of an advocate to hold papers until his/her remuneration is paid. It is also held therein that even in the absence of an agreement fixing the fees, the Court has got discretion to fix a reasonable fee on the principle of ‘quantum meriut’(as much as he has earned). Finally the Division Bench laid down :

“34. Hence we hold that the enquiry under O.3, R.4, C.P.C, is summary and serious disputed questions of fact cannot be decided under this Rule. In the absence of any allegations of misconduct on the part of the advocate or any dispute regarding fee due or payable, the Court is justified in ordering payment of fee or a reasonable amount of fee if the fee is not fixed when the client wants to seek the leave to terminate the services of the Advocate in the case.”

5) But, the Supreme Court in R.D. Saxena (1 supra) declined to uphold right of an advocate to have lien over the papers and documents of the party for the advocate’s claim for fees. Therefore, the above Division Bench decision of this Court upholding lien of an advocate to withhold papers and documents of the party, stood overruled.

6) In A.K. Saxena (2 supra) after referring to R.D. Saxena (1 supra), the Supreme Court came to the following conclusion:

“6.