Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2202 (MAD)

A. Rajendran v. Arulanthasamy Nadar

2020-11-20

R.MAHADEVAN

body2020
ORDER : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. While CRP(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1141 to 1158 of 2013 have been filed by one A. Rajendran, Advocate, CRP(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1940 to 1953 of 2013 have been preferred by the claimants. Inasmuch as these two, batches of the cases arises from the one and the same order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Thanjavur, they were heard together and are decided by this common order. 2. The succinctly stated facts are as follows. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), Air Force Station, Revenue Divisional Office, Thanjavur, the claimants filed the Land Acquisition Original Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the learned II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur. After due contest and upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2010. Challenging the same, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred Appeal Suit before this Court which vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011 dismissed the said appeal suits thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court. Further, this Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount awarded by the Reference Court, within a period of one month, if not already deposited. One A. Rajendran, Advocate appeared and conducted all these proceedings on behalf of the claimants. 2.2. Subsequently, the claimants filed cheque applications to withdraw the amount lying in the deposit through another advocate by name S. Karunakaran, Opposing the same. A. Rajendran, filed applications under Order III Rule 4 CPC praying to dismiss the cheque applications filed by the claimants as no leave was obtained to determine his vakalat for the claimants in accordance with law. By separate orders dated 02.01.2013 the Court below directed the applications filed by the said Advocate Rajendran to be taken on file only to the extent of the alleged legal remuneration claimed by him. Aggrieved over the same, the counsel as well as the claimants filed the respective batch of Civil Revision Petition before this Court. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) Nos. Aggrieved over the same, the counsel as well as the claimants filed the respective batch of Civil Revision Petition before this Court. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1141 to 1158 of 2013, the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and he appeared for the claimants and conducted the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, Reference Court as well as this Court for a period of nearly 17 years without receiving any amount towards fees, miscellaneous expenses and other professional charges; however, the claimants have indulged in an unfair practice by filing cheque applications through another Advocate without obtaining consent from the petitioner and without seeking leave from the Court below; and hence, the court below ought to have dismissed the cheque applications filed by the claimants. According to the learned counsel, the claimants are at liberty to engage anyone as the like, but before engaging another counsel, they have to pay the legal fees to the counsel already on record, without discharging that duty, the claimants have no right to engage another counsel and to prevent such erosion, it is a practice in force that they have to obtain permission from the court before whom the case is pending, whereas no such permission was obtained by the claimants; and as such, further proceedings issuing cheques to the claimants with respect to the compensation for the lands acquired cannot be allowed to proceed. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the order impugned herein and allow the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Advocate Rajendran. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners in CRP(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1940 to 1953 of 2013/claimants submitted that the recovery of remuneration cannot be done under Order III Rule 4 C.P.C. and the fees payable to the earlier advocate have already been settled and the revocation notice contains such payment in detail and hence, the court below ought to have dismissed the applications filed Order III Rule 4 CPC by the earlier Advocate. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Civil Revision Petition filed by the claimants may be allowed by setting aside the orders impugned herein. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer submitted that the issue involved herein is between the lawyer and the claimants and therefore, this respondent has no say with respect to the same. 6. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer submitted that the issue involved herein is between the lawyer and the claimants and therefore, this respondent has no say with respect to the same. 6. Heard, all the parties and perused the material placed before this Court. 7. The facts remain undisputed are that the Government acquired the lands belonging to the claimants in the year 1994 and passed award, determining compensation. Seeking enhancement of the compensation, the claimants preferred Reference Petitions, which were allowed thereby refixing the compensation awarded. Challenging the same, the Government went on Appeals, which were dismissed by this Court. At this stage, the claimants filed cheque applications by engaging a new Advocate. Seeking dismissal of the said cheque applications the erstwhile Advocate Rajendran preferred application under Order III Rule 4 CPC. The Court below have taken on record the said applications to the extent of his alleged legal remuneration. Feeling aggrieved, both the advocate Rajendran and the claimants are before this Court with the respective batch of Civil Revision Petitions. 8. It is a common knowledge that the pleader cannot by simplicitor wanting discharge, obtain a discharge. He would have to inform the client, return the papers and then claim discharge. Similarly, a client cannot simplicitor require a pleader who has worked for him to be discharged to engage another pleader without paying the fees of the pleader. That would tantamount to encouragement of abuse. A pleader or advocate or solicitor is an officer of the Court and must be as much protected as the litigant himself for whom the courts are established. Consequently, the satisfaction of the Court with regard to the protection of both these parties is required. 9. Under Order III Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, every appointment of a pleader is deemed to be in force, until it is determined with the leave of the court. However, the fact that the court has to grant leave would not mean and imply that the leave can be granted mechanically. It has to be granted upon seeing the facts of the case and the reasonableness of the application. 10. However, the fact that the court has to grant leave would not mean and imply that the leave can be granted mechanically. It has to be granted upon seeing the facts of the case and the reasonableness of the application. 10. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma, 2000 (7) SCC 264 , which relates not only to the claim of lien, but also to be moral obligation of the Solicitor in allowing his client to change his advocate. In that decision, it was observed that the litigant is free to change his advocate when he desired and a lien cannot be exercised by the Advocate.' 11. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. A.K. Saxena, AIR 2004 SC 311 , also it was held by the Supreme Court that 'the advocate's fee could not be adjusted against the advocate's own personal liability to the client and he would require to file a suit against the client to recover his fees'. 12. Undoubtedly, an Advocate is given the privilege of audience by the Court and as such, he is an officer of the court. He is at liberty and is indeed entitled to follow his possession, but that does not mean, in following his profession, he is not subject to the rules of professional etiquette or conduct and professional ethics or he can disobey the rules of conduct framed by the Courts, whose officers he claims to be. Thus, it is manifest that the Advocate is entitled to charge his fees. However, he cannot insist his client to pay his fees by retaining the papers even when his client wants to discharge him. 13. In the present case, the claimants engaged, another advocate at the stage of receiving cheques for the compensation amount in respect of the land acquisition proceedings, by changing their erstwhile Advocate Rajendran, who in turn, preferred applications under Order III Rule 4 C.P.C. seeking to dismiss the cheque applications filed by the claimants. This Court is of the view that the manner in which the petitioner/advocate Rajendran demanding his professional charges from the claimants is obliviously indifferent and inconsistent with the requirement of professional ethics. He deviates from the honourable traditions of his profession, discards his position as an advocate and becomes a litigant himself, which is highly reprehensible. 14. This Court is of the view that the manner in which the petitioner/advocate Rajendran demanding his professional charges from the claimants is obliviously indifferent and inconsistent with the requirement of professional ethics. He deviates from the honourable traditions of his profession, discards his position as an advocate and becomes a litigant himself, which is highly reprehensible. 14. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner/advocate Rajendran submitted that the petitioner contested the case of the claimants from the Land Acquisition Officer to this Court for nearly 17 years without receiving any charges that too his legal fees, which submission was strenuously refuted by the learned counsel for the claimants, stating that the claimants already paid his legal fees as agreed, this court is not inclined to go into the same in detail in these batches of the Civil Revision Petitions. Since, the proceedings is relating to the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer payable to the claimants for their lands acquired and the petitioner Rajendran is only an advocate, he cannot file revision seeking relief for himself in the present proceedings of such nature and the appropriate remedy available to him will be to file separate suits against the respective claimants, for recovery of his professional fees. In view of the same, the order passed by the Court below in entertaining the applications filed under Order III, Rule 4 CPC on file for the alleged legal remuneration alone, cannot be allowed to sustain in the eye of law and hence, the same are liable to be set aside to that extent. 15. Accordingly, the separate orders dated 02.01.2013, passed by the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Thanjavur, are set aside to the extent as indicated above. As a consequence CRP(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1141 to 1158 of 2013 filed by the petitioner/advocate Rajendran are disposed of, by granting liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Civil forum for recovery of his legal fees. In view of the same, C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1940 to 1953 of 2013 filed by the petitioner/claimants stand allowed. The court below is directed to issue cheques in respect to the compensation amount to the respective claimants, as per costs. Consequently, connected Petitions are closed.