The suit for recovery of professional fees is time-barred under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and acknowledgment of dues must be clear and unambiguous to extend the limitation period.

Amitav K. Gupta, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 03.06.1997 and 11.06.1997 respectively passed in Money Suit. No.12 of 1993 by IVth Additional Sub-Judge, Ranchi whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred as plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent in the present appeal.

3. In brief, the case of plaintiff is that he is a practicing advocate and was advocate for the defendants/Bank since 1975-76 and was entitled to charge the fees for drafting, conference, attending and arguing the cases for the Bank/defendants. It is submitted that he submitted the bills to the defendants/Bank for payment in the year 1985 but the same remained unpaid despite repeated reminders where after he served the notice dated 20.07.1991 on the respondents/Bank for payment of his bills. Again on 15.12.1992 he sent a letter to the respondents/Bank regarding the meeting held on 16.09.1992 and demanded payment of the outstanding bills but defendant no. 3 by letter dated 18.1.1993 refused to pay the dues hence, the aforesaid money suit was instituted for realization of his outstanding dues from the defendants/Bank.

4. Defendant no. 1 to 3 appeared but did not contest the suit and the suit proceeded ex parte against them. Defendant nos. 4 to 6 appeared and filed their written statement pleading therein that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no cause of action. That the suit was bad for mis-joinder of party as well as under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and the court fee paid was insufficient. The defendants stated that the plaintiff was an empanelled Advocate of the different branches of the defendants/Bank but the services of the plaintiff was not satisfactory. That no formal agreement was executed with respect to empanelment of the plaintiff/appellant. The empanelled Advocates were being paid fees according to the schedule of fees which was amended from time to time. The above fact was known to the plaintiff and he agreed to work as an empanelled Advocate of the Bank but no separate agreement was entered into with him with respect to payment of fees. It is stated that plaintiff failed to submit periodical bills rather he submitted his bills for the first time in the year 1985, after more than three years, for payment of the work claimed to have been done but the same was time barred. Defendants have stated that the bills were not submitted as per the schedule or as per actual work done. That on 16.09.1992 a meeting was convened in which bank officials as well as plaintiff were present and after discussion minutes of meeting was prepared which was signed by everyone and the dispute with regard to payment of bills was settled and the entire dues of the plaintiff has been paid by the defendants/bank and no amount remained outstanding hence, plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of any amount and the suit was fit to be dismissed with cost.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues :-

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for this suit?

(iii) Is the claim of the plaintiff barred by law of limitation and whether the account between the parties were mutual open and running?

(iv) Was there any agreement between the plaintiff and defendant regarding schedule of fees for different work done by the plaintiff or the plaintiff being empanelled Advocate of defendants was entitled to be paid his professional bill as per schedule of fee of empanelled Advocate as fixed by the defendants/ bank as amended from time to time?

(v) Whether the plaintiff's entire dues was paid as per agreement dated 16.09.1992?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to realise the amount claimed in this suit with interest as claimed?

(vii) Whether court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient?

(viii) Whether the plaintiff i