The interpretation of the proviso in Rule 6(2) of the Advocate's Fees Rules regarding the entitlement of an advocate to full fees when a suit is decreed after the withdrawal of the defendants' contentions.

1. Whether an advocate is entitled to the full fees prescribed in a case where the suit is decreed pursuant to the withdrawal of the contentions of the defendants, after the settlement of issues in that suit? This is the question raised in this revision.

2. The facts:-In a suit filed by the State Bank of Travancore for a sum of more than a lakh of rupees, the defendants had filed written statements raising different contentions. Issues were settled in the suit and the case was posted for trial. Since the defendants had withdrawn their contentions, the suit was decreed on 1-8-1977 "as prayed for with costs". When the decree was prepared, the full fees payable to the plaintiff's advocate (including the fees for the junior advocate) has been included in the costs portion. The defendants thereupon filed a petition for amendment of the decree as per S.151 & 152 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court allowed that petition with a one word order which was set aside by this court and directed the trial court to pass a speaking order. After the remand, the trial court has passed a considered order allowing the application for amendment of the decree, holding that the advocate is entitled only to one half of the fees prescribed by the Rules.

3. The High Court of Kerala has framed the Rules in 1969 regarding the fees allowable to legal practitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Advocate's Fees Rules). R.6 deals with certain categories of suits which include suits for money and a scale is prescribed regarding the fees payable to the advocate. Sub-Rule (2) therein lays down different slabs for calculating the fees. A proviso to the said sub-rule is the relevant part which requires interpretation now. It reads as follows:

'Provided that when a suit is compromised, settled or withdrawn, or is decided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation, or is decided ex-parte or dismissed for default before any evidence is recorded, the fee payable shall be one half of the scheduled rate or Rs.25/- in the case of Small Cause Suits and Rs.50/- in the case of Original Suits, whichever is higher".

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the reduction of the fees to one half is permissible only in a case where the decision is made on admission of the parties without any investigation, and that in the settlement of issues, the process of investigation is also involved. He drew my attention to the analogous provision in the Rules framed under the Travancore-Cochin Bar Council Act relating to the fees payable to the advocates in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin area. Under the said Rules, the advocate was entitled to his full prescribed fees when the suit is decided on merit after contest "or is compromised subsequent to the framing of issues". On the strength of that, it is contended that the process of framing of issues was taken as an act involving some enquiries or investigation towards the adjudication of the disputes. If so, why the framers of the present Rules have not incorporated the same wordings in the Advocate's Fees Rules? These rules have been framed "in supersession of all existing rules in the matter". Thus the Travancore-Cochin Rules have also been superseded providing different criteria and dimensions.

5. The learned counsel has contended that the framers of the rules had taken into account the fact that the advocate concerned will have to do some work at the time of settlement of issues and therefore the passing through of any stage in the suit subsequent to the pleadings would entitle the advocate to the full fees prescribed. But a reading of the above proviso would clearly show that the framers of the rules did not propose to go to that extent, e.g., when a suit is compromised, whether the compromise is after the settlement of issues or even after the taking of full evidence in the case or in an extreme case, even after the hearing of the arguments, then the advocate is entitled only to one h