The main legal point established in the judgment is that an advocate is entitled to remuneration in accordance with the applicable High Court Rules and Orders when conducting cases on behalf of a party, in the absence of any mutual settlement.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. Petitioner herein is an Advocate of this Court. In this petition, he is seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay remuneration of the petitioner on account of professional-fee for conducting cases on behalf of respondent-Bank at Ambala City Courts, in accordance with Rule 1 and 1-A of Chapter 16-B of the Rules and Orders of the High Court, Volume-I, and further for grant for interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the outstanding amount.

2. It is the admitted case of the parties that respondent-bank had entrusted some civil suits to be conducted by the petitioner on behalf of the Bank at Ambala City Courts. The grievance for the petitioner is that he has not been paid remuneration in accordance with the amended High Court Rules and Orders. The case of the respondent-bank is that fee is to be paid as per mutual settlement between the respondent and the counsel on the panel of the Bank. It is also said that fee used to be paid in stages i.e. 1/3rd was being paid at the time of entrustment of suits, and the balance at the time of conclusion of the case. It is contended that no legal right has been violated and as such, petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in this petition.

3. After hearing the counsel and going through the record, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in the petition.

4. Respondent-bank has not brought on record any material in regard to settlement qua the fee referred to in the written statement. In absence of any settlement, petitioner is entitled to fee in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders in vogue when the suits were entrusted. The High Court Rules and Orders in regard to fee to be paid to an Advocate were amended on 27.2.1991 and therefore, if the suits had been entrusted before 27.2.1991 and had been concluded before the said date then petitioner is entitled to fee at the unrevised rate. In case, suits had been entrusted or on after 27.2.1991, then petitioner is entitled to fee at the revised rate. In regard to suits which had been entrusted before but evidence in the suits came to be recorded and concluded thereafter, then 1/3rd payment would be made at the unrevised rate and the balance in accordance with the amended High Court Rules and Orders.

5. Learned counsel for the Bank, has however, contended that petitioner is not entitled to the full fee in regard to the suits which had been withdrawn from him. Against this submission, petitioner has contended that at no stage, he had shown his unwillingness to conduct cases on behalf of the Bank, but the same were withdrawn on administrative grounds. Reference in this regard has been made to letter dated 28.8.1992. Vide this letter, petitioner had objected to the action of the bank in withdrawing civil suits and executions from him. In reply to this letter, Bank vide letter dated 10.9.1992 informed the petitioner that the cases have been withdrawn on the basis of an administrative decision taken at the appropriate level as per Banks norms. It was not told to the petitioner that the cases have been withdrawn on account of some misconduct or negligence on the part of the petitioner. Having written to the petitioner that the cases are being withdrawn on the basis of some policy decision, it is not permissible for the respondent-bank to contend that the cases were withdrawn on account of some negligence on the part of the petitioner. A counsel can be denied fee only when he makes default or is guilty of any misconduct. In this case, no material in this regard has been brought on record by the respondent-bank. Accordingly, I am of the view that petitioner is entitled to the fee in the cases which he had filed but evidence had not been recorded or concluded and later, the said cases were withdrawn from him. However, the payment shall be made in the manner already indicated above.

6. Consequently, for the reasons recorded above, the wr