Judgment:
vinod kumar 2014.02.26 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.956 of 2014 (O&M) [1].***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.956 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:19.02.2014 The Improvement Trust, Jind ...Appellant Versus Bijender Lather ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the appellant.
***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery has been decreed.
In brief, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of `96,800/- alleging that he was appointed as an advocate by the defendant to conduct its cases on a fee @ `2,200/- per case in addition to miscellaneous expenses and clerkage.
It is further alleged that he has not been paid the fee of 42 cases and hence, the suit was filed.
In reply, the case of the defendant is that Surinder Singora was on the panel of the defendant who agreed to take `2,000/- per month vide office letter no.105 dated 10.04.2006 as per government instructions comprised in letter no.1416/2005-SJJ(I) dated 4.4.2006.
It was denied that the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant in the month of August 2007 to vinod kumar 2014.02.26 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.956 of 2014 (O&M) [2].***** prosecute its cases in the District Courts at Jind.
It is, however, admitted that Surender Singora was appointed on some other post on 06.08.2007 and at that time, 70 cases were pending in the District Courts at Jind.
It is further averred that there was no advocate on the panel of the defendant.
The plaintiff was consulted by Municipal Council, Jind and he orally assured to conduct the cases of the defendant because he had applied in that regard to the Government of Haryana.
He assured that he will not claim any fee during this period for conducting the cases of the defendant so long as he is appointed as L.A.by the government.
At this assurance, the defendant handed over 28 power of attorneys to the plaintiff on 18.08.2007, who filed the same in the District Courts at Jind on 18.08.2007, 01.09.2007, 08.09.2007 and 15.09.2007.
It is also alleged that before appointment of the plaintiff as Legal Advisor, Brijesh Kumar was appointed as Legal Advisor of the Trust.
He was appointed at a fee of `2,000/- per month vide letter no.1034 dated 17.09.2007 and since then he has been working on the said post.
It is further urged that the plaintiff had appeared for the defendant w.e.f.18.08.2007 to 15.09.2007, approximately for a period of one month and only sought adjournments but after the appointment of Brijesh Kumar, he did not appear.
He was given 28 Power of Attorneys but he had filed 12 Power of Attorneys, which were not signed by the defendant.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues and both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their case.
The Trial Court, after appreciating evidence, decreed the suit of vinod kumar 2014.02.26 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.956 of 2014 (O&M) [3].***** the plaintiff to the effect that he is entitled to recover fee @ `2,200/- per case in 13 cases.
The said decree was granted along with 6% interest per annum till the payment of amount.
Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 14.08.2013, both the plaintiff and the defendant filed appeals which were taken up together by the Appellate Court and dismissed the same upholding the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
It was found as a fact that the plaintiff had been engaged in 13 cases in which he had filed the Power of Attorneys Ex.D42, Ex.D44, Ex.D46, Ex.D48, Ex.D50, Ex.D52, Ex.D54, Ex.D56, Ex.D60, Ex.D65, Ex.D67, Ex.D69 and Ex.D71.
It was, thus, held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim his fee @ `2,200/- per case to the extent of 13 cases.
Although counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment and decree of the Courts below are illegal being perveRs.but he could not point out any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below.
Since no question of law much-less substantial is found to have been involved in the present appeal, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below.
The appeal is, thus, hereby dismissed.
February 19, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE