Point of Law: An allegation of collusion must be specifically averred with details and proved. Although it is apparent that the defendant no. 2 admitted to the claim made by the plaintiff, the evidence led by the defendant no. 1 does not clearly establish the collusion.

JUDGMENT :

BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant (plaintiff) assailing the impugned judgment dated 23.10.2020 passed in Money Suit No. 09/2016 and the decree thereon thereby awarding her Rs. 4,30,000/- only to the plaintiff although she had claimed a sum of Rs. 10,75,000/- towards the plaintiff’s professional fees.

2. The plaint was filed in the year 2016 by the plaintiff against the two respondents who were defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The defendants were husband and wife. The plaintiff was hired by them as their lawyer.

3. According to the plaintiff the defendant no. 1 had hired her services by signing the vakalatnama in her favour to conduct cases before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (for short DRT), the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati and the Debts Appellate Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata (for short DRAT). The defendant no. 2 had been given the power of attorney by defendant no. 1 to engage counsel to conduct the cases before the forums. The plaintiff asserted that, pursuant thereto, she appeared and conducted cases before the forums. However, despite conducting those cases on behalf of the defendants, no fees were paid to the plaintiff by the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff made several requests but to no avail in spite of assurances. The plaintiff continued appearing before the DRAT and even settled the matter out of Court with the bank on their request. When the plaintiff learnt that the defendant no. 1 had instructed another counsel, she issued a legal notice dated 02.06.2014 demanding a sum of Rs. 7,60,000/- upon the defendant no. 1. In paragraph 20 of the plaint, the plaintiff asserted about the various dates she appeared before the forums, the professional services she rendered and the fees raised by her totalling to Rs. 7,60,000/-.

4. In paragraph 21 the plaintiff asserted that besides the aforesaid amount she had also rendered other professional services which were not included in the legal notice totalling to Rs. 3,15,000/-. It was thus her case that the plaintiff was entitled to a total of Rs. 10,75,000/- as her professional fees and accordingly prayed for the relief.

5. The defendant no. 1 filed her written statement. She stated that she had authorized and empowered the defendant no. 2 to engage counsel to conduct the cases before the forums. As per her knowledge the case was being conducted by a learned senior counsel and the plaintiff was working as his junior and assisting him. The defendant no. 1 also stated that the plaintiff was accompanying the defendant no. 2 wherever and whenever he used to move around and as such she was misled by the defendant no. 2 regarding the matter before the Gauhati High Court. With regard to the specific averment about the plaintiff’s appearances before the forums and the professional services rendered as detailed in paragraph 20 and 21 of the plaint, the defendant no. 1 made a vague denial putting the plaintiff to strict proof thereof. The defendant no. 1 also alleged that the plaintiff was in collusion with defendant no. 2 to extract money from the defendant no. 1.

6. The defendant no. 2 while objecting to the suit, substantially admitted the relevant assertions made by the plaintiff with regard to her engagement as a lawyer and the professional services rendered. He admitted that it was after the assurance of the defendants that the plaintiff started conducting cases before the forums. While replying to paragraph 20 of the plaint the defendant no. 2 stated that Rs. 5,000/- per day as legal fees besides accommodation had been agreed with the plaintiff. However, due to financial problems the defendant no. 2 could not pay the travel charges, as well as make payment for her accommodation and legal fees. The defendant no. 2 categorically admitted that he had carefully gone through the table at paragraph 20 of the plaint and confirmed that the plaintiff had in fact appeared and rendered her legal services as mentioned therein. With refer