The court established that compliance with the relevant Rules on advocate fees validated the partnership firm's claim for payment irrespective of the prior litigation's dismissal.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of July 2022 S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.

First appellant/the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited, Kottayam is a fully owned Government Company. Second and third appellants are its authorised officials. Respondents herein are respectively the petitioner (M/S Joseph and Markos Advocates) and third respondent (the Secretary to Government of Kerala, Department of Agriculture) in the writ petition. This writ appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment in W.P.(C)No.7556/2020 dated 31.3.2022 by which, the appellants were directed to pay the amount claimed by the first respondent – partnership firm of lawyers towards professional fee through Ext.P3(k) bill within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows: The writ petition was filed by the registered partnership firm of lawyers seeking for a direction to the respondents therein/the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited, Kottayam to pay the amounts covered by Exts.P3(a) to P3(k) series of bills submitted by them immediately. Respondents therein/the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited, Kottayam filed a suit i.e., O.S.No.77/2015 before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam through the partnership firm of lawyers.

3. Suit was filed claiming an amount of Rs.53,10,50,000/- in which

1/10th Court fee was paid at the time of filing the plaint. Subsequently, the balance court fee was not paid and the suit was dismissed for non payment of the balance court fee. In such situation, the partnership firm of lawyers produced Ext.P3(k) bill before the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited, Kottayam claiming advocate fee based on proviso to Rule 6(2)(iv) of the Rules regarding Fees Payable to Advocates (for short 'the Rules'). In Ext.P3(k), the balance amount due to the petitioner firm is mentioned as Rs.1,99,20,395/- (Rupees One crore ninety nine lakhs twenty thousand three hundred and ninety five only). Alleging non payment of advocate fees, partnership firm of lawyers approached the writ court by filing W.P.(C)No.7556/2020.

4. Writ court, by judgment dated 31.3.2022 disposed of the writ petition, directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount claimed in Ext.P3(k) bill, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, relevant portion of which reads thus:

7. From a reading of Rule 6 (2)(iv) it is clear that, in original suits, if the amount or value exceeds Rs.50,000/- on Rs.50,000/- as above and on the remainder, the advocate fee will be 5%. The proviso to Rule 6(2) says that when a suit is compromised, settled or withdrawn or is decided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation or is decided ex-parte or is dismissed for default before any evidence is recorded, the fee payable shall be one half of the schedule rate or Rs.500/- in the case of Small Cause Suits and Rs.1500/- in the case of Original Suits, which ever is higher. There is no dispute that Ext.P3(k) is strictly in accordance to proviso to Rule 6(2)(iv). The contention raised by the Standing counsel is that the proviso to Rule 6(2)(iv) is not applicable. If that is not applicable, the applicable Rule is Rule 6(2)(iv). Here is a case where the petitioner firm decided to confine their claim to proviso to Rule 6(2)(iv). In such situation, this Court need not order advocate fees based on proviso to Rule 6(2)(iv). Therefore, that contention will not stand.

8. The second contention raised by the Standing counsel is based on Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is only a recommendation regarding the guidelines/norms. The Standing counsel submitted that Ext.P1 is approved by the Corporation. But there is no case to the respondents that this is accepted by the petitioner firm before filing the suit. Rule 37 of the Rules says that nothing in these rules shall be deemed to affect any agreement between an advocate and his cl