The court emphasized that issues of fact relating to a settlement and limitation must be adjudicated at trial rather than through a dismissive application of procedural rules.

ORDER :

V. Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri.Chandan K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.G.S.Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Defendant in O.S.No.7719/2022 is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the order passed in the said suit on I.A.No.3 rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short).

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. Respondent/plaintiff being the practicing Advocate, said to have rendered professional services to the revision petitioner/defendant. In respect of such professional services, in the year 2015, a invoice was raised by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.27,50,000/-.

3.2. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- is paid towards the said invoice and balance sum of Rs.15,50,000/- stood unpaid.

3.3. Plaintiff also detailed out as to what made him to keep quite when the entire amount was not paid as per the invoice amount in paragraph Nos.4 to 8 of the plaint which reads as under :

“4. The Plaintiff came to know through the newspaper publication in Times of India dated 11.01.2017 that the Defendant received Rs. 350 Crores from M/s. Galaxy Builders. When the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant and requested to pay the balance amount of Rs. 15,50,000/-, the Defendant promised to pay the said amount. However, the Defendant went on postponing the payment of the balance amount. There is no justification whatsoever in delaying the payment as the Defendant received the full amount due to the Defendant from M/s. Galaxy Builders. The plaintiff whenever requested the Defendant for balance fee the Defendant expressed about his financial crisis and was evading prompt payment of balance fee amount.

5. It is submitted that in relation to Kashimutt litigation arising from O.S.NO.34/2000 on the file of Addl: District Judge, Tirupathi, as President of Bangalore Sri, Kashimutt (one of the Branch of Kashimutt) the Defendant entrusted the said case to the Plaintiff with a request to appear for late Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji then Matadhipathy of Mutt and the Plaintiff accepted said brief and appeared before the courts at Tirupathi, Ernakulam, Kadapa, Hyderabad, New Delhi in all connected proceedings from the year 2008 till 2012, the deities of the Kashimutt, which was in the custody of the Plaintiff in the said suit Sri Raghavendra Theertha Swamiji was received by the Plaintiff herein as Per Court Orders in JMFC Court at Kadapa. Due to the hard, efforts of plaintiff herein a huge success was achieved by the plaintiff which was celebrated by spending crores of rupees by followers of the mutt. Defendant promised a huge fee to the Plaintiff with lots of appreciation for plaintiff and took credit for himself for the achievement of the plaintiff. But the Defendant miserably failed to honour his assurances to the plaintiff. At one stage, the Defendant even cited the reason that the Defendant was in financial crisis that the Defendant was unable to pay any fee to the Plaintiff in the case related to Kashimutt. The Plaintiff initially requested for Rs. 1 Crore fee for the services rendered by him for 4 years in Kashimuttmatter, but at the request of elderly people of the Mutt, it was reduced at Rs. 40,00,000/- But the Plaintiff has been paid, only Rs. 10,00,000/- by mutt related persons from Mumbai balance Rs.30,00,000/- is still due. The Plaintiff is conduce of escapism has resulted in great damage to the still hoping to get that balance money and the Defendants Plaintiff and he is put into a lot of financial crisis. At certain stage, the Defendant even told the Plaintiff that the Defendant's son, Mr. Ravindra Pai is objecting to pay any fees relating to Kashimutt to the Plaintiff but off-late the' Defendant is projecting Mr. Ravindra Pai as a Leader of Kashimutt. Recently the Defendant has paid Rs. 1 Crore for Rama Mandir Construction at Ayodhy