Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
P. Naveen Rao and Dr. G. Radha Rani, JJ.
B.V. Subbaiah – Appellant
versus
Andhra Bank Rep. by its Chairman
and Ors. – Respondents
City Civil Court Appeal No.89 of 2011
Decided on 31.1.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Sri D.V. Seetharam Murthy, Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. T. Sridhar
For the Respondents: Smt. V. Dyumani, Standing Counsel for the Andhra Bank
IMPORTANT POINT
Money suit (Recovery suit) – Advocate is essentially an Advisor to his client – Relationship between Lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence – Defendants denying professional fee of their Standing Counsel and taking plea of limitation itself is a degrading act on their part.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXVII Rule 1 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 18 – Money suit (Recovery suit) – Limitation – Appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff – Dispute concerning professional fee of Advocate – ‘Price of work done’ is not applicable to professionals and Article 18 of Limitation Act is not attracted to claim of plaintiff – Trial Court has misdirected itself in appreciating issue of limitation – Trial Court also erred in observing that in some of cases plaintiff was removed in middle of suits and some other Advocates were engaged to conduct cases, as such plaintiff must be having knowledge of his removal and limitation would start from said date – Advocate is essentially an Advisor to his client – Relationship between Lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence – Client engages a Lawyer for personal reasons and he is at liberty to leave him also for the same reasons – But Lawyer, in turn, is not an agent of his client and is a dignified, responsible spokesperson – Defendants denying professional fee of their Standing Counsel and taking plea of limitation itself is a degrading act on their part – Appellant/plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for with 9% interest from date of institution of suit till date of realization. (Paras 15.5, 18, 27, 28, 29 and 30)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. G. Radha Rani, J.—This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2011 passed in O.S.No.77 of 2008 on the file of X Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad in dismissing the suit filed by him.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
3.1. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in brief was that he filed a suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 19,46,701.31 Ps. with subsequent interest @ 18% pa. The plaintiff submitted that he was a practicing advocate for more than 5 decades and he was a standing counsel for various banks and companies including the defendant bank i.e. Andhra Bank. The defendant bank entrusted several matters to the plaintiff before various Courts, Tribunals, Forums etc. He also appeared before the State Consumer Forum on behalf of the bank and rendered his services. Several matters were disposed off. But the defendant bank, though a nationalized bank, had not chosen to pay his fees, not even the expenses incurred, in spite of several requests made by him.
3.2. The total amounts payable by the defendant bank including the expenses, junior fee etc. were indicated by him as under:
| Sl. No. | Details of Case Nos. in Amount payable | Amount payable by the Defendant Bank (Rs.) |
| 1 | CD No.139/1991 (Saidabad branch) | 7,287.00 |
| 2 | CDA No.299/92 (Annavaram branch) | 1,250.00 |
| 3 | CDA No.128/93 (Repalle Branch) | 1,250.00 |
| 4 | CDA No.262/94 (Tadipatri Branch) | 5,050.00 |
| 5 | CDA No.258/94 (Khammam Branch) | 3,450.00 |
| 6 | CDA SR No.823/93 against CD 331/92 (Bitragunta) | 1,250.00 |
| 7 | CD No.59/1990 (HMT branch) | 6,250.00 |
| 8 | CD No.64/90 (Anakapalli branch) | 7,950.00 |
| 9 | CD No.273/91 (Nakkalagunta branch) | 7,900.00 |
| 10 | CDA SR No.645/94 against CD No.56/93 (Ravinuthala branch) | 1,250.00 |
| 11 | CDA No.445/93 (Nakkalagunta branch) | 1,250.00 |
| 12 | CD No. 49/91 (Balanagar branch) | 4,850.00 |
| 13 | CD No.48/91 (Balanagar branch) | 16,250.00 |
| 14 | CD No.11/91 (Nizamabad branch) | 5,450.00 |
| 15 | CD No.7/90 (Jaladanki branch) | 1,250.00 |
| 16 | A.S. No.3009/90 | 76,953.00 |
| 17 | OA No.1069/1996= OS 1184/1990 | 15,505.00 |
| 18 | O.S. 672/1979 | 2,442.75 |
| 19 | OA 403/99 = OA 433/88 | 1,93,425.00 |
| 20 | OS 475/91 = OA 1117/96 OA 446/99 | 6,53,471.00
|
| 21 | OS 1211/91 | 40,492.56 |
| 22 | OS No.301/93 (Andhra Bank vs. Akruti Wood Works) | 22,640.00 |
|
| Grand Total: | 10,76,876.31 |
He stated that he addressed several letters to the respondent bank demanding the fee but as there was no response from them, having no option, filed writ petitions vide W.P.No.32469 of 1998 and W.P.No.8441 of 2004 before the Hon’ble High Court to pay the above mentioned amounts together with interest from the dates of default. Both the writ petitions were clubbed and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 6.2.2008 dismissed both the writ petitions giving liberty to him to file a civil suit for recovery of the amount. Hence the suit.
3.3. He further submitted that there was no contract agreed between them as to the amount of fee to be paid. As such, the fee had to be paid as per the Advocates Fee Rules. If the value of the suit was more than Rs. 10,000/-, a junior along with the senior could be engaged and the junior fee was also payable. The defendant bank was approbating and reprobating the pleadings. In one breath, the defendant stated that they had already paid by letter dated 4.2.1997, in another breath, the d
