IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN CIVIL REVISION No. 297 of 2005 RAM KISHORE TRIPATHI Versus KALURAM & ANR.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Appearance:

Shri Vijay Bhushan Garg, appearing on behalf of Mohd. Qasims Jaisani-Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Depesh Koshta- Advocate for respondents.

.……………………………………………………………………………………………

O R D E R (Reserved on 04.12.2025)

(Pronounced on 09.12.2025)

The present revision has been filed by the petitioner /plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2005 passed by the appellate Court thereby dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2004 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Gauharganj, Distt. Raisen in Civil Suit No.2B/2003 whereby the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,500/- was dismissed. This Civil Revision has been filed because the valuation of the suit is below the minimum valuation for which statutory appeal can be filed under CPC.

2. The petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant/ respondent on the assertion that the petitioner/plaintiff is an Advocate and he had agreed to contest a Civil Appeal on behalf of the respondents which was pending in the Court at Raisen. During pendency of the appeal, when the petitioner-plaintiff on 16-04-2002 reached the Court, then he came to know that some other Advocate has been engaged by the defendants. It was alleged in the plaint that a total fee of Rs.20,000/- was settled with the plaintiff-petitioner and just to avoid paying the full fees to the plaintiff- petitioner, another counsel was engaged by the defendants. It is further alleged in the plaint that thereafter the defendants came to the plaintiff for giving no objection on the Vakalatnama of new counsel and after much bargaining, it was settled that an amount of Rs.5000/- shall be paid to the plaintiff, but only an amount of Rs.1500/- was paid and the plaintiff gave no objection for engagement of new counsel but later on the remaining Rs.3500/- was not paid. On these assertions, suit was filed for recovery of balance amount of Rs.3500/-.

3. The defendants filed their written statement and in the written statement it was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was extorting them for money on each date of hearing and being fed up with this extortion of the plaintiff, they had decided to engage another counsel but the plaintiff refused to give no-objection and the Court was not accepting the Vakalatnama of new counsel without no-objection of the Plaintiff who was the previous counsel. Therefore, under duress and pressure they signed on a document agreeing to pay Rs.5000/- to the plaintiff and paid Rs.1500/-in cash though they had already paid an amount of Rs.5000/- to the plaintiff when the appeal was pending and he was engaged as counsel. It was their contention that the plaintiff had already recovered fees more than the schedule framed by the State Government as per M.P. Civil Court Rules and Orders and the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for recovery of fees over and above the fee schedule, which is the maximum fees that can be awarded by the Court.

4. The counsel for the rival parties had vehemently argued their case as per the material available on record of the case.

5. This Court has heard the counsel for the rival parties at length and also perused the record of the trial Court and the appellate court.

6. The trial Court in its judgment while dismissing the suit had held that it appears that when the defendants had engaged some other counsel in the pending civil appeal before the District Court and that the plaintiff being the earlier counsel had refused to give no-objection on the Vakalatnama of freshly engaged counsel and it was under this pressure and duress that the defendants seemed to have agreed to pay a further amount of Rs.5000/- to the plaintiff.

7. Looking to the overall circumstances of the case that the appellate Court had refus