- (1.) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 618/- instituted in the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta. The trial court dismissed the suit and an application under section 38 of the presidency Small Cause Courts Act preferred against the decision by the plaintiff was also dismissed by a Full bench of that Court. The petitioner in this Rule questions the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench affirming the judgment of the trial court. The dispute is not over a large sum of money but it involves a question which is of some importance.
(2.) THE plaintiff is an Advocate usually practising on the Original Side of the High Court at Calcutta. The first defendant is a firm of solicitors. Plaintiff's case is that acting as solicitors for their clients, Metropolitan Bank Limited, the first defendant had briefed him "in several matters on the Original Side of the High Court at settled fees". Between march and June, 1963 he submitted bills to the first defendant for the work done by him amounting to Rs. 2,618/ -. On or about October 4, 1963 the first defendant paid Rs. 2,000/- against these bills and, according to the plaintiff, refused to pay the balance amount of rs. 618/ -. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this Rule arises for recovery of this amount. In view of the subsequent amalgamation of the metropolitan Bank Limited with the united Industrial Bank Limited, the latter who became the successor in interest of the former was impleaded as the second defendant.
(3.) THE first defendant in their written statement denied the allegation that any fees were "settled" and also claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to charge fees at the rate mentioned in his bills. It was stated that this defendant paid to the plaintiff Rs. 2,000/-under instructions from the second defendant and that this sum was "far in excess" of all the fees that he could justly claim. It was added that "whatever moneys were received by this defendant from the Bank for payment of fees to the plaintiff was made over by this defendant to the plaintiff".;