Pushpa Verma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Representing Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - the coal controller in spite of the same failed to clear the bills. (ix) according to the original plaintiff, he had not only conducted the claim cases before the commissioner of payments, but had also conducted the miscellaneous appeals before the district judge, dhanbad as well as a labour court, case no. the government of bihar recommended the fee payable to the plaintiff at the minimum rate vide legal remembrance's letter no. 6. both the parties led their evidences, oral as well as documentary. a/4) requesting him to arrange for payment of his outstanding bills at the earliest reducing the amount at the lower rate as per the rule 426 of the civil court rules and treating the receipts endorsed in the bills as pre-receipts of the reduced amount. there was absolutely no vagueness in the plaint and that all the statements were clear and the same were effectively replied by the defendants in the written statement. in the terms of appointment, it was clearly mentioned that the fee shall be payable on the basis of the rate fixed by the government of bihar. it has been thus concluded that learned trial court has committed serious errors of fact as well as of law and has erroneously rejected the petitioner's claim by dismissing the suit. 17. according to the appellants the plaintiffs case proved by the admitted documents as well as the material facts admitted by the defendants in their written statement read with the deposition of dw-1. 18. dw-1 ram krishna gupta is an employee of the respondents, then working in the office of the coal controller, calcutta. a/2. in the said letter of appointment it was clearly mentioned that fee of the plaintiff will be payable at the rate as may be fixed by the government of bihar, ext. a/4. in the said letter he had clearly mentioned that he was ready to accept payment at the minimum rate and as such he cannot subsequently claim his fee at the maximum rate and on that ground alone, the plaintiffs claim is liable to be dismissed.n.n. tiwari, j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.9.1995 (decree signed on 23.9.1995) passed in money suit no. 11/88 by learned sub-judge-ii, dhanbad whereby the appellants' suit was dismissed.2. the suit was filed by the plaintiff, mr. m.m. verma (deceased), for recovery of a sum of rs. 2,67,852.19 claimed to be due as a professional fee and clerkage against the respondents. the plaintiffs had also claimed interest @ 18% and the cost of the suit.3. the case of the original plaintiff in brief is that:(i) he was appointed as a counsel by the coal controller, by his letter dated 27.8.1975 on behalf of the ministry of energy, department of coal, union of india, to conduct the cases before the court of the commissioner of payments as also before the appellate courts. according to the terms of appointment, his professional fee was to be paid at the rates allowed by the government of bihar.(ii) according to the plaintiff, large number of claims were made by hundreds of ex-colliery-owners under the provisions of the cocking coal mines (nationalization) act, 1972 before the commissioner of payments appointed under the cocking coal mines (nationalization) act, 1972. he appeared and worked for the respondents in those cases to safeguard the interest of the union of india.(iii) the government of bihar fixed the professional fee of the plaintiff, at the maximum rate of 10% of the value of the claim cases, as per rule 28(1) of the high court's circular, vide memo no. 5153, dated 11.9.1981 issued by the additional secretary, law and justice department, state of bihar.(iv) after disposal of the cases the original plaintiff had sent his bills of professional fee, to the coal controller, at calcutta through the coal superintendent, dhanbad making request for payment of the bills.(v) the first bill (ext. 5/c) was raised by the plaintiff as the maximum rate of fee of 10% in accordance with the rate fixed by the government of bihar. the said rate of fee is 10% of the valuation of the claim cases. the said bill was accepted and the amount was paid to the original plaintiff by the coal controller, through an account payee cheque.(vi) surprisingly, the subsequent bills raised on the said basis were at first kept pending for a long time and thereafter were referred to the law department, government of bihar, patna seeking advice of law department in regard to the rate of fees payable in such cases by the government.(vii) the attempt was to deliberately delay the payment of the plaintiffs bills. although, earlier bill of the plaintiff was cleared @ 10% of the valuation of the claim, subsequent bills were withheld as aforesaid.(viii) the law department, government of bihar, called for certain details in regard to conducting of cases by the plaintiff and considered the same. law department by memo no. 5152 dated 11.9.1981, then replied to the coal controller and advised to pay the plaintiffs fee at the maximum rate, on the valuation to the calculated as per the state government circulars. the coal controller in spite of the same failed to clear the bills.(ix) according to the original plaintiff, he had not only conducted the claim cases before the commissioner of payments, but had also conducted the miscellaneous appeals before the district judge, dhanbad as well as a labour court, case no. 1/1979 for which the bills for fee were raised on daily basis, which also remained unattended. the plaintiff sent several reminders and made several requests to clear the bills, but neither the payment was made nor any reason was assigned to the plaintiff.(x) the original plaintiff, thereafter, served a statutory notice under section 80 of the civil procedure code by registered post upon the defendants-respondents.(xi) on receipt of the said notice, some amount towards part payment was paid to be plaintiff by the coal superintendent. the original plaintiff went on looking after the claim cases at the requests of the coal superintendent, who assured to make all the efforts to clear his bills. however, the plaintiffs bills were not finally cleared and a sum of rs. 1,50,329.19 accumulated. the original plaintiff, thus, filed the suit.4. the defendants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. it was stated, inter alia, that the erstwhile coal board had appointed the original plaintiff sometime in the year 1973 and his remuneration was fixed as the minimum scale of fees prescribed under the civil court rules. according to the prescribed minimum scale of fee, it was variable on different slabs of value of the claim in the suit, decreed or dismissed. the coal board was dissolved w.e.f. 1.4.1975, statutorily. assets and liabilities of the board vested in the central government and the engagement of the plaintiff was allowed to be continued by letter dated 27.8.1975 of the coal controller, government of india. the government of bihar recommended the fee payable to the plaintiff at the minimum rate vide legal remembrance's letter no. c/adv.-7/8/1336/lr, dated 17.2.1984 (ext. a/6). payments of professional fees were made to the plaintiff in accordance with the rule, confirmed by the law department, in its letter dated 31.10.1985. it has been stated that the first three bills which were paid to the plaintiff were certified by him to the effect that the same were prepared as per the prescribed rate and the defendants had cleared those bills at the higher rate under confusion, created by the plaintiff. the respondents, therefore, detected the discrepancy in december 1982. on the basis of the prescribed rate, the first three bills were also revised and passed at the minimum rate and the excess payments made earlier in those bills were adjusted against the subsequent bills. the plaintiff by his letter dated 20.5.1985 addressed to the coal controller, had consented to accept the fees at the lower rate prescribed under rule 426 of the civil court rules of the high court of judicature at patna (civil) vol. 1 and as such the subsequent claim for payment at the higher rate cannot be entertained by the government of india. the defendants asserted that the total amount of fees of the original plaintiff for conducting the cases were calculated as rs. 52,605.35 at the minimum rate which was paid to him and as such the claim for the balance amount of rs. 1,12,587.44 is absolutely imaginary and baseless.5. on the basis of the said pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:(i) whether the plaintiff substituted by his heirs, has a valid cause of action for the suit?(ii) whether the suit as framed is maintainable?(iii) whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation?(iv) whether the suit suffers from non-service of a valid notice under section 80, cpc upon the defendants?(v) whether the suit suffers from variation and vagueness of claim?(vi) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for the amount claimed in the suit?(vii) to what other relief or reliefs are the plaintiff entitled?6. both the parties led their evidences, oral as well as documentary. learned trial court discussed the evidences. while deciding issue no. 6 he found that by ext. a/2 dated 27.8.1975 the original plaintiff was appointed as a counsel, on behalf of the union of india to conduct the cases, filed by the erstwhile coal board, before the commissioner of payments, dhanbad. he further found that earlier the plaintiff had received his fee and clerkage on his first professional bills from the coal controller at the maximum rate as provided under rule 426 of the civil court rules (vol.-i). shortly thereafter a dispute arose at the level of the coal controller and the plaintiff in order to avoid delay in clearance of his pending bills furnished a conditional offer to the controller by his letter dated 20.5.1981 (ext. a/4) requesting him to arrange for payment of his outstanding bills at the earliest reducing the amount at the lower rate as per the rule 426 of the civil court rules and treating the receipts endorsed in the bills as pre-receipts of the reduced amount. but there was still delay in clearance of the bills at the level of the coal controller and then by subsequent letter dated 18.8.1981 (ext. 5/d) the plaintiff withdrew his earlier offer and acceptance of professional fees at the minimum rate and insisted for payment of his bills which was on the basis of the maximum rate as per the letter dated 11.8.1981, ext. 5/c. the law department also by its letter no. 49/80/2938, dated 17.4.1984 (ext. 5/b) requested the coal controller to clear all the bills of the plaintiff as the same were admissible. in the means while, some of the bills of the plaintiff were passed by the controller at the minimum rate in terms of the law department's letter no. 1336, dated 17.2.1984 (ext. a/6) and some other bills were considered as 'uncontested' and the claim for professional fees in respect thereof was reduced to half of the admissible fee as per the rule 426 of the civil court rules. the coal controller then requested the legal remembrancer to convey his confirmation of the matter and by letter dated 31.10.2005 (ext. a/10) the law department confirmed that the plaintiffs bill were passed in accordance with the rules. the plaintiffs outstanding bills were passed on the basis of the minimum rate and a total sum of rs. 52,605.35 was paid to the plaintiff between 14.12.1979 and 10.2.1986. the last payment was made on 10.2.1986 which the plaintiff received under protest. the plaintiff has deducted the said sum from his total of rs. 2,02,934.54.7. learned court below, proceeded to determine as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the higher slab of fee as provide under rule 426 of the civil court rules. in that context he considered the relevant rules of the civil court rules and also considered ext. a/2 which was a letter issued before vesting of the coal board in central government. learned trial court further considered the ext. 5/c, the letter sent to legal remembrancer dated 18.2.1985 (ext. a/8), the letter dated 18.2.1985 (ext. a) and the letter dated 31.10.1985 (ext. a/10) and observed that the letter dated 31.10.1985 of the law department had overriding effect on its earlier letter dated 11.9.1981 (ext. 5/c) and dated 17.4.1985 (ext. 5/b) for the purpose of deciding the bills of the plaintiff. learned court below also considered the evidence of pw-1 who was substituted in place of the original plaintiff after his death and observed that the statement does not reveal anything beyond the documentary evidence. learned court below also discussed the evidences of dw-1 ram krishna gupta, the superintendent of the coal control office, calcutta who formally proved several letters and also stated that the fee of the plaintiff was payable at variable, rate according to the valuation of the suit at the minimum rate as provided in the civil court rules.8. on the basis thereof, learned court below held that the claim of the plaintiff for the higher slab of fee as provided under rule 426 of the civil court rules in reference to his professional bills as no merit and he is not entitled to the claim made in the suit.9. while deciding issue no. 5, learned court below has further observed that the bills claimed by the plaintiff were of different dates. some bills did not duly describe the particulars and the statement regarding the same was not made a part of the plaint and could not be answered in the written statement. learned court held that the claim of the plaintiff regarding his dues of professional fee of rs. 1,50,329.19 and 5% clerkage, rs. 7,500/-, suffers from vagueness and no decree for any ascertained sum can be passed without difficulty.10. though the other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed on the basis of the findings recorded on issue nos. 5 and 6.11. mr. rothlt roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the said findings of the impugned judgment and decree of learned trial court. he submitted that findings on issue nos. 5 and 6 are unsustainable and unsound as the same are not based on proper consideration of the facts and evidences. learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff had raised his bills on the basis of the terms of his appointment (ext. a/2) read with the rate fixed by the government of bihar, ext. 5/c. there was absolutely no vagueness in the plaint and that all the statements were clear and the same were effectively replied by the defendants in the written statement. in view of the nature of the controversy, the court ought not to have entered into any calculation and the statements of bills. the bills were not disputed. only the rate was disputed. it is an admitted fact that the bills were passed at the minimum slab of rate and rs. 52.605.35 were paid to the plaintiff. there was no denial so far as the rendering of professional service by the original plaintiff was concerned. there was only controversy regarding the slab of fee and the rate on which it was payable. learned counsel submitted that there was no ambiguity in view of ext. 5/c that the professional fee of the original plaintiff was payable at the maximum rate. in the terms of appointment, it was clearly mentioned that the fee shall be payable on the basis of the rate fixed by the government of bihar. there was no question of determination of amount of claim as the same is a matter of arithmetical calculation, once the rate of fee ascertained. it has been thus concluded that learned trial court has committed serious errors of fact as well as of law and has erroneously rejected the petitioner's claim by dismissing the suit.12. dr. j.p. gupta, learned assistant solicitor general of india appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that by ext. a/2 the original plaintiff was appointed as a counsel to appear on behalf of the respondents and to look after the cases and it was mentioned therein that the professional fee fixed by the government of bihar shall be paid to the plaintiff. learned counsel submitted that though in ext. 5/c the government of bihar had fixed the plaintiffs professional fee at the maximum rate, the plaintiff himself had subsequently agreed to accept fee at the lower rate by his letter dated 20.5.1981 (ext. a/4). he had withdrawn his said proposal much belatedly and again claimed his fee at the maximum rate. learned counsel submitted that whatever the rate was fixed by ext. 5/c read with ext. a/2, i.e., the rate of fee mentioned in the letter of appointment, the same was altered by the plaintiff himself by his subsequent conduct. the plaintiff thus waived his right to claim fee on the basis of the letter of his appointment. the plaintiff, thereafter, cannot claim his tee on the basis of ext. 5/c. the judgment and decree of learned court below in the that view is not illegal of unsound.13. the points for determination in this appeal are:(i) whether the finding of learned trial court denying the plaintiffs claim of fee at the maximum rate is sound and legal?(ii) whether in view of his letter ext. a/4, the plaintiffs claim of fee at the maximum rate is barred by waiver?findingspoint no. (i)14. the original plaintiff in the suit had claimed that his appointment was made by virtue of letter dated 27.8.1975 issued by the respondents to conduct all claim cases filed by the erstwhile coal board before the commissioner of payment, dhanbad along with two pending money suits in dhandbad courts. according to the terms of his appointment in the said letter, the professional fee was payable in accordance with the rates allowed by the government of bihar. learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that according to the letter issued by the additional secretary, law and justice department, government of bihar being memo no. 5152, dated 11.9.1981 addressed to the coal controller, government of india, the plaintiff was allowed fee at the maximum rate and he was entitled to get fee on that rate.15. in order to arrive at the findings on the said points, i have closely scrutinized the facts and the evidences on record. the plaintiffs have examined altogether four witnesses and proved a number of documents. the defendant has examined dw-1 and proved several documents.16. pw-1 prabhash bhandari is a formal witness. he has proved the notice under section 80, cpc dated 23.9.1987 (ext. 1). pw-2 sanjay verma is the plaintiff no. 3. he is the son of the original plaintiff. this witness has proved the plaintiffs case in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of his deposition, pw-3 ratan chandra mahto has proved several documents filed by the plaintiff. he happened to the advocate clerk of the original plaintiff. the witness has proved the bills submitted by the plaintiff as exts. 2/2-1 to 2/2-36. he has also proved ext. 3 which is the statement of the pending bills of the plaintiff. ext. 4 is the acknowledgment receipt of submission of bills. ext. 5 series are various letters and communications which have been brought on record by the plaintiffs to prove their case. ext. 5/c is the letter of the law department, government of bihar whereby the state of bihar had written to the respondents to pay the plaintiffs fee at the maximum rate. the said exhibits have been also proved by the pw-3. he has further proved the notice under section 80, cpc dated 18.3.1983, ext. 6, which was the first notice served by the plaintiff regarding his claim. this witness has also proved the letter.of the plaintiff dated 18.9.1981 (ext. 5/d), addressed to the coal controller, whereby the plaintiff had withdrawn his acceptance of fee at minimum rate which he had earlier offered to avoid delay in payment. he has also proved the acknowledgment receipt of the letters sent by the plaintiff as exts. 7 and 7/a. pw-4 sahdeo kumbhkar is the advocate clerk. he is a formal witness and he has proved the letter dated 2.3.1984, ext. 5/e, which was sent from the office of the chief accounts officer, coal controller, calcutta to the deputy commissioner, dhanbad. he has also proved a letter issued from the coal controller, calcutta, ext. 5/f and two acknowledgment receipts of the receiving letter of the plaintiff as exts. 7/b and 7/c.17. according to the appellants the plaintiffs case proved by the admitted documents as well as the material facts admitted by the defendants in their written statement read with the deposition of dw-1.18. dw-1 ram krishna gupta is an employee of the respondents, then working in the office of the coal controller, calcutta. he has been examined on behalf of the defendants to support their case also to prove several letters and communications. he has proved the letter dated 31.7.1975 issued by the office communicating the petitioner that the chairman has fixed remuneration at the minimum rate. the said letter has been marked as ext. a. he has further proved the letter dated 18.12.1982, ext. a/1, which is a communication of the said letter regarding the plaintiffs fee to the director, ministry of energy, new delhi, and to the plaintiff vide letter dated 27.8.1975, ext. a/2. he has also proved exts. a/3, a/4, a/5, a/6, a/7, a/8 and a/9.19. ext. a/3 is the letter issued by the secretary, department of law, government of bihar, addressed to the deputy commissioner, dhanbad informing that the fee was payable to the plaintiff on the basis of the valuation of the suit under the provisions of civil court rules of the high court of judicature at patna and asking the respondents to pay the plaintiffs bills as per the earlier letter no. 439 dated 31.1.1977 of the law department, government of bihar. ext. a/4 is a letter dated 20.5.1981 sent by m.m. verma (original plaintiff) addressed to the coal controller, calcutta whereby he had shown his willingness to accept the fee even at the lower rate prescribed under rule 426 of the civil court rules of the high court of judicature at patna (civil) if the payments are made without delay. dw-1 has also proved ext. a/5, a letter of the director, department of coal to coal controller for rejecting the plaintiffs bill to legal remembrancer. ext. 6 is a letter of the superintendent and remembrancer of legal affairs, government of bihar, contending that the calculation made in the earlier four cases were quite correct and asking the respondent to pay half of the amount of the concerned bills to ram nandan sahay sinha. ext. a/7 is the letter of the additional secretary, department of law, government of bihar addressed to the assistant coal superintendent requesting him to pay all the bills of the plaintiff, ext. a/8 is the letter sent by the additional coal controller, calcutta to the superintendent and remembrancer of legal affairs, law department, government of bihar dated 18.2.1985 whereby he was requested to confirm to the earlier direction issued for payment of the bill submitted by the plaintiff. ext. a/9 is another letter issued by the law department, government of bihar to assistant coal superintendent, calcutta requesting him to pay the bills of the plaintiff according to the terms of his appointment showing inability of the department to furnish any further clarification. ext. a/10 is the letter of the law department, government of bihar addressed to the assistant coal superintendent, office of the coal controller, calcutta conveying that the earlier bills of the plaintiff were passed in accordance with the rules.20. all the said documents have been proved by the dw-1. he has also proved the notice served by the plaintiff on the coal controller as ext. b. besides the above, he has been also examined to support the defence taken in the written statement.21. in paragraph 13 of his deposition dw-1 as stated that the plaintiff was appointed on variable rate of fee which was to be paid on minimum rate according to the valuation of the suit. he has further stated that the bills submitted by the plaintiff have been paid and nothing was due. in paragraph 14 he has, however, admitted that the first bill was raised at the maximum rate and the same was paid in view of the certificate of the plaintiff that the same was in accordance with the rule. in paragraph 15 he has further admitted that the department has assured to pay the plaintiffs fee on the rate permitted by the state of bihar. this witness, however, has not denied the claim of the services rendered by the plaintiff.22. on appraisal of the evidences of the respective parties, i find that the plaintiff was appointed as counsel on behalf of the union of india for all claim cases filed by the erstwhile coal board before the commissioner of payment, dhanbad and the two money suits pending in dhanbad courts, by the respondents, by letter dated 27.8.1975, ext. a/2. in the said letter of appointment it was clearly mentioned that fee of the plaintiff will be payable at the rate as may be fixed by the government of bihar, ext. 5/c is the letter issued by the department of law, government of bihar to the coal controller, government of india being memo no. 515, dated 11.9.1981. on perusal of the said letter, it is evident that the law department, government of bihar allowed the plaintiffs fee at the maximum rate. the plaintiff submitted the bills of his fee at the maximum rate, which was initially paid by the defendant without any objection (see para 14 of the deposition of dw-1). the letter dated 27.8.1975 (ext. a/2) and the letter issued by the government of bihar dated 11.1.1981 (ext. 5/c), if read together, go to prove the plaintiffs claim that he was entitled for fee at the maximum rate. the said letters also find support from the defendants' evidence, ext. a/7, ext. a/9, ext. a/10 and admission of the dw-1 in paragraphs 14 and 15 of his deposition, and go to prove the plaintiffs case.23. learned court below has committed an error in not appreciating the said evidences properly and has come to a wrong finding on issue nos. 5 and 6 holding that there is vagueness in the claim and in that view, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the payment claimed by them. he has also discussed and relied upon the ext. a, ext. a/1, ext. a/3 communicating the chairman's decision of allowing fee to the plaintiff at the minimum rate. the said decision of the department contrary to the terms of the plaintiffs appointment has no relevance and on that basis the plaintiffs claim cannot be denied.24. for the reasons aforesaid, the said finding of learned trial court is held to be erroneous and contrary to the materials and evidences on record. point no. (i) is, accordingly, decided in favour of the appellant.point no. (ii)25. it has been vehemently argued by mr. j.p. gupta, assistant solicitor general of india, that though in the letter of appointment, ext. a/2 dated 27.8.1975, it was mentioned that the fee will be payable to the plaintiff at the rate allowed by the government of bihar and that the government by its letter (ext. 5/c) had allowed the plaintiffs fee at the maximum rate, the plaintiff claim of fee at the maximum rate is barred by waiver in view of his letter dated 20.5.1981-ext. a/4. in the said letter he had clearly mentioned that he was ready to accept payment at the minimum rate and as such he cannot subsequently claim his fee at the maximum rate and on that ground alone, the plaintiffs claim is liable to be dismissed.26. mr. rohit roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, refuting the contention of the respondents submitted that the plaintiff had sent the said letter (ext. a/4) to the respondents as he was disgusted by the delay in payment of bills. the said offer was, however, conditional. he had offered to accept the payment even on the minimum rate, if the amounts of bills are paid without delay. when the payment was not made in spite thereof, the plaintiff had withdrawn his offer made in the letter (ext. a/4) by his letter dated 18.9.1981-ext. 5/d. learned counsel further submitted that since the plaintiff had withdrawn his letter before making payment of the bills at the minimum rate by the respondents, there is no question of waiving the right by the plaintiff to claim his fee according to the term of his appointment.27. after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the said letters of the plaintiff dated 20.5.1981-ext. a/4 and dated 18.9.1981, addressed to the coal controller, withdrawing his earlier acceptance of fee at the minimum rate, ext. 5/d, i find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. the letter ext. a/4 was a conditional offer to accept payment even at minimum rate, if the payments are made without delay. when payments were not made even thereafter for months together, the plaintiff had withdrawn his said offer by letter dated 18.9.1981-ext. 5/d. the plaintiffs claim thus cannot be denied on the basis of the conditional letter, ext. a/4, which was also subsequently withdrawn by him by his letter ext. 5/d.28. in view of the above discussions, the point no. (ii) is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and it is held that the plaintiffs claim is not barred by waiver.29. in the result, it is held that the plaintiffs have been able to establish that the original plaintiff was entitled to get his professional fee at the maximum rate and the bills submitted by him at the maximum rate are payable to the plaintiffs. learned trial court erroneously dismissed the plaintiffs suit on irrelevant consideration, without properly appreciating the vital evidences on record which go to prove the plaintiffs case, as discussed herein above. most of the relevant facts are admitted and there was no vagueness at all in the plaintiffs claim. the findings of learned court below on issue nos. 5 and 6 are, thus, contrary to the facts and evidences on record and are unsustainable.30. the judgment and decree of the court below is thus set aside. this appeal is allowed.31. since the respondents have already passed the bills at the minimum rate, the amount of the bills shall be corrected by calculating the plaintiffs fee at the maximum rate. the plaintiffs are entitled to get the balance amount after adjusting the amount which has already been paid to the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs-appellants shall also be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the amounts found due and payable from the date the same were due till the final payment. the appellants are entitled to the cost of the appeal. the lawyer's fee for the appeal is quantified at rs. 2500/-.