JUDGMENT

1. This Rule was issued u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts. Act, 1887, on an application by the plaintiff in the suit, who is a Pleader by profession. His case is that he was engaged to resist the claim in a mortgage suit instituted against the defendant. He successfuly defended the suit, which was dismissed with costs on the 3rd February 1911. He alleges that the defendant paid him Rs. 5 only on account of fees and has refused to make any further payments. He consequently instituted this suit on the 29th January 1914 for recovery of such sum as the Court may adjudge reasonable, and values the relief at Rs. 45. He states incidentally in the plaint that Rs. 50 would be a fair measure of remuneration, as that was the sum decreed in favour of the defendant as against his opponent in the mortgage suit. The defendant pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and, further, that the plaintiff had been paid whatever was lawfully payable to him. The Small Cause Court Judge did not investigate the case on the merits, but dismissed the suit on the authority of the decision of Kamini Moni Debi v. Khettra Mohan Ganguli 13 Ind. Cas. 43 : 15 C.L.J. 660 : 17 C.W.N. 45 on review, 11 Ind. Cas. 382 : 15 C.W.N. 681 : 15 C.L.J. 690. We are now invited to set aside the decree of dismissal, on the ground that the case mentioned is distinguishable and Section 28 of the Legal Practioners Act, rightly construed, does not bar the claim.

2. Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act is in these terms: "No agreement entered into by any Pleader...with any person retaining or employing him, respecting the amount and manner of payment for the whole or any part of any past or future services, fees, charges or disbursements in respect of business done or to be done by such Pleader...shall be valid, unless it is made in writing signed by such person, and is, within fifteen days from the day on which it is executed, filed in the District Court or in some Court in which some portion of the business in respect of which it has been executed has been or is to be done." It is plain that the agreement thus invalidated is an agreement respecting the amount and manner of payment of fees, charges and disbursements. In the case before us, there is no allegation that there was any agreement touching either the amount or the manner of payment of the fees. According to the plaintiff, the defendant asked him to act as his Pleader; nothing was said as to the amount of fees or as to the time when the fees should be paid. The very fact that the defendant asked the plaintiff, to conduct his case necessarily implied that he would reasonably remunerate the plaintiff. The relation between the parties is contractual and the case is not governed by Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, which finds a place in the fifth Chapter devoted to certain relations resembling those created by contract. That section, besides, deiines the obligation of a person who has enjoyed the benefit of a non-gratuitous act. Here the defendant is bound to remunerate the plaintiff, who acted at his request, even though the act might not have been beneficial to the defendant; for instance, the defendant would have been bound to remunerate the plaintiff, even though the latter had been unsuccessful in his defence. It is plain that if A requests B to do a piece of work for him, and B does it, not intending to act gratuitously, he is bound to pay B, even if he, is not benefited thereby. The request implies a promise to pay reasonable remuneration. In this view, no question consequently arises as to the effect of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, which treats of the obligation of a person to make restitution or compensation for advantage received by him under an agreement that is discovered to be or becomes void. But it is worthy of note that if there had been an agreement as to the amount or manner of payment of fees, which was void because made in contravention of Section 28 of the Legal Pra