IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that the circulars issued by MSEDCL regarding counsel's fees were binding and that the plaintiff was entitled to fees based on these circulars, despite MSEDCL's claims of lack of a concluded contract.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The judgment and decree dtd. 28/8/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhandara in Special Civil Suit No.29/2008 is under challenge in the present appeal.

2. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 / Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) have preferred the appeal. Defendant No.4 is respondent No.2 and the plaintiff is respondent No.1 in the appeal.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclatures.

4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: The plaintiff is an Advocate practising at Bhandara and was also appointed as panel Advocate of the MSEDCL. Defendant No.4 was the Superintendent Engineer. As per contentions of the plaintiff, he had filed a Special Civil Suit for recovery of arrears of energy charges, as per instructions of the head office of defendant No.1 against defaulter namely M/s.Uniferro International Company Limited. The plaintiff was getting counsel 's fees as per scheduled rates declared by MSEDCL vide correction slip No.78 dtd. 5/7/1984 to GO2(S&S) dtd. 18/2/1965. Thus, as per contention of the plaintiff, he was entitled to get counsel 's fees according to the said circular. The said rates of the fees were based on the fees of Pleaders and Advocates decided by High Court vide Notification No.P-0115/68 dtd. 23/12/1982 which came into force from 15/1/1983. The MSEDCL used to pay half of the amount of the counsel 's fees at the time of drafting or filing of any suits and remaining half was to be paid at the time of final disposal of cases. The above mode of payment was made applicable by the circular dtd. 1/2/2005 which was made effective from 1/1/2005.

5. The MSEDCL had instructed the plaintiff to institute a suit in the month of March 2004 against M/s.Uniferro International Company Limited. The value of the suit was 170, 06, 74, 000/-. The rates of the counsel 's fees, as per the circular, was Rs.925.00 + 0.625%, if the claim is exceeding of Rs.20, 000.00. As per this calculation, the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs.1, 06, 30, 012.00. The plaintiff had issued bill dtd. 6/3/2004 for Rs.56, 16, 906.00 which is half of the total amount of the counsel 's fees along with the court fees of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 and other litigation charges. The plaintiff issued a communication to the MSEDCL requesting to make arrangement to approve the draft and also make arrangement for payment of the expenses worth of Rs.56, 16, 906.00 vide his letter dtd. 13/4/2004. However, the MSEDCL has paid only Rs.3, 00, 000.00 towards court fees and Rs.1.00 lac towards litigation charges. The plaintiff was assured by the MSEDCL that the balance amount would be paid to him in near future and, therefore, the plaintiff had filed suit bearing No.73/2004 before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhandara. As per contentions of the plaintiff, though he had filed the suit on behalf of defendant No.1, the MSEDCL has not paid fees to which he is entitled for and, therefore, he issued notice dtd. 2/8/2005. The said notice was neither replied nor complied. On 23/4/2007, he requested the law officer of the MSEDCL, i.e. Nagpur Zone, to look into the matter and requested for payment. After repeated requests, the MSEDCL has not paid the amount. The plaintiff had also filed pre-litigation case No.1/2007 before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Bhandara as the plaintiff was willing to settle the matter mutually. The plaintiff further contended that he had filed several suits on behalf of the MSEDcL and claimed the counsel 's fees. The plaintiff filed suit No.73/2004. Subsequently, he had cancelled his vakalatnama. His Will was not cancelled and, therefore, he constrained to file the suit for recovery of the said amount.

6. In response to the suit summons, defendant No.3 appeared and filed his written statement vide Exhibit-19 and denied the contentions. As per contention of defendant No.3, Special Civil Suit No.73/2004 is still pending and no cause of action arose to fil