Summary judgment is an exceptional power reserved for cases lacking a real prospect of success where no factual dispute exists. It cannot be employed to conduct a mini-trial; when claims regarding the existence, terms, or performance of a professional agreement are contested, a regular trial is mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

I.A. 38753/2024

1. The present application under Order XIIIA of the CPC has been filed by the Plaintiff for passing a summary judgment.

2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.2.60 crores from the Defendants.

3. The averments, in brief, as made in the Plaint read as under :

a. The Plaintiff is a practising Advocate and Cost and Management Accountant (CMA) who has worked for more than twelve years in the field of finance and accounts in various Public Sector Undertaking and also enrolled as an advocate since 2005.

b. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers who along with their mother Smt. Santosh Arora were party to various litigation proceedings initiated at the instance of them and their uncle Sh. M. L. Arora since the year 1998.

c. It is stated that in March 2002, Defendant No.1 approached the Plaintiff to avail his services on a recommendation given by one Mr. Adarsh Bedi who is also a friend of the Plaintiff. It is further stated that the Defendant No.1 came to the Plaintiff qua several disputes and litigation proceedings going on between the Defendants and their uncle.

d. It is stated that the Plaintiff agreed to provide the professional services on the fees of Rs. 2,000/- per hour towards consultation, Rs. 15,000/- per appearance, Rs. 5,00,000/- if the Defendants would want the Plaintiff to prepare the written arguments, and 10% of the aggregate amount of fees for all other services rendered by the Plaintiff during the course of the professional engagement and the same was duly accepted by the Defendants.

e. It is stated that the services rendered by the Plaintiff also includes police related issues, electricity connection, issues pertaining to Shop No. 99 etc., administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings etc. It is further stated that during the professional engagement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Defendants were continuously replacing the advocates at different stages of proceedings of the suits and changed about ten advocates, however, the Defendants kept ascertaining that it is the Plaintiff whom they are relying on.

f. It is stated that the Defendants engaged different advocates who charged their fees as deemed appropriate by them. It is further stated that Defendants engaged some Advocate for final arguments who charged Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the final arguments only. It is stated that, however, it was the Plaintiff who drafted the written arguments which formed the basis of oral arguments and filed the same in Court. It is further stated that the Defendants took divergent opinions from several advocate, however, the Defendants placed reliance upon opinion and advice of the Plaintiff with regard to the approach to be followed in case involving Shop No. 128. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that it was the Plaintiff who formulated the arguments in rebuttal, defence of maintainability.

g. The Plaintiff delivered wide ranging services to the Defendants and continued to deliver the same for more than 18 years from March 2002 to January 2021 with regard to numerous issues and problems faced by the Defendants inside and outside the Court. It is further stated that the Plaintiff even after suffering heart attack in 2010 and during the COVID time has put a lot of hard work, his deep professional knowledge and precious productive time of life as per the terms agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that on the conclus