JUDGMENT 1. We are invited in this rule to set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes at Hughly, in a suit commenced by the Petitioner to recover money which the Defendant, her pleader, had withdrawn from Court. It was not denied on behalf of the Defendant that he had withdrawn the money which had been deposited in Court by the Plaintiff; but he resisted the claim on the ground that he was entitled to retain the sum withdrawn as he had a lien upon the money to the extent of one hundred rupees for legal fees due under an agreement for professional services rendered. Evidence was given in support of the alleged agreement and the learned Small Cause Court Judge came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything as the Defendant had rightly appropriated the money withdrawn by him. On behalf of the Plaintiff, this position has been assailed on the ground that the agreement set up by Defendant was not enforceable under sec. 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act of 1879. In support of this view reliance has been placed upon the decision in Sarat Chandra Choudry v. Chandra Kanta Roy I. L. R. 25 Cal. 805 (1898). Sec. 28 provides that no agreement entered into by any pleader with any person retaining or employing him, respecting the amount and manner of payment for the whole or any part of any past or future services, fees, charges or disbursements in respect of business done or to be done by such pleader shall be valid unless it is made in writing signed by such person, and is within 15 days from the day on which it is executed, filed in the District Court or in some Court in which some portion of the business in respect of which it has been executed has been or is to be done. In the case before us, the alleged agreement was not made in writing nor was it filed within 15 days in Court; it is consequently invalid. It is obvious therefore that if the Defendant had sued to enforce the agreement the claim would have been disallowed under sec. 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act. In the case before us, the alleged agreement was not made in writing nor was it filed within 15 days in Court; it is consequently invalid. It is obvious therefore that if the Defendant had sued to enforce the agreement the claim would have been disallowed under sec. 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The question, therefore, arises, if it makes substantial difference in principle, in a case of this description whether such agreement is sought to be enforced by the pleader as Plaintiff or whether it is set up by him as Defendant in a suit brought by the client. In our opinion, the answer ought to be in the negative. We may add that the view taken by this Court in Sarat Chandra v. Chandra Kanta I. L. R. 25 Cal. 805 (1898) has been followed in Raghunath Saran v. Sri Ram I. L. R. 28 All. 764 (1906) and Subba Pillai v. Ramasami Ayyar I. L. R. 27 Mad. 512 (1903) although these decisions seem to go further and to hold that the pleader may be entitled to claim reasonable remuneration. Whether this latter view is correct or not is a question which does not require examination now, because the Defendant did not ask in the Court below to be allowed a set off on account of reasonable remuneration for services rendered, possibly because if he had asked to be allowed a set off of an unascertained sum against the specific amount claimed by the Plaintiff, the Court might have refused to entertain it. The result is that the rule is made absolute and the decree of the Court below set aside. The suit will stand decreed with costs both in this Court and in the Court below. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at one gold mohur.