Non-payment of settled professional fees permits adjustment of the advocate’s claim from recovered litigation proceeds.

The Plaintiff/Appellant (Prem Singh) engaged the Respondent (Advocate C.S. Rathore) for two cases: a Writ Petition [WP(C) 12349/05] and a Contempt Case [No. 107/2011]

Following a court-ordered settlement, the employer paid Rs. 80,000 to the Respondent on behalf of the Appellant (Rs. 20,000 by demand draft and Rs. 60,000 in cash)

While the Respondent forwarded the draft, he retained the Rs. 60,000 cash

The Appellant sued for recovery of the cash

The Respondent filed a counter-claim for Rs. 36,000, alleging unpaid professional fees (Rs. 25,000 for the Writ and Rs. 11,000 for the Contempt)

The Trial Court decreed the recovery suit in favor of the Appellant but dismissed the counter-claim

On appeal, the First Appellate Court (ADJ) upheld the recovery decree but reversed the dismissal of the counter-claim, decreeing Rs. 36,000 in favor of the Respondent to be adjusted against the Appellant's dues

The Appellant approached the High Court in a Second Appeal challenging the counter-claim decree

1. Whether the judgment of the learned ADJ decreeing the Counterclaim of the Respondent in the sum of Rs. 36,000 is based on no evidence and is therefore perverse.

2. Whether the Appellate Court could admit a document (fee bill) into evidence without it being proved in accordance with law.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which restricts second appeals to "substantial questions of law"

Principles of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the appreciation of oral versus documentary evidence, specifically acknowledging that even where a specific document (like a fee bill) is not formally proved, oral testimony and the conduct of parties can establish a fact under the "preponderance of probabilities"

The High Court observed that while the Respondent’s conduct in retaining the Appellant's money was unfair, the material facts supported the existence of an unpaid professional fee

The Court found that the Appellant failed to provide any evidence or even a specific statement regarding when or how he had settled the professional fees for the two litigations

Conversely, the Respondent’s testimony, supported by the clerk (DW-2), indicated a consensus that fees were to be adjusted from the compensation

The Court reasoned that the lack of rebuttal from the Appellant regarding the fee agreement made the First Appellate Court's finding a reasonable appreciation of evidence rather than a perverseness

The Court held that even if the formal fee bill (Mark DW1/A) was not proved strictly, the totality of circumstances and oral evidence sufficiently established the debt

The court affirmed the decree of the counter-claim for Rs. 36,000, noting that the Plaintiff/Appellant had not proven payment of fees

The Second Appeal was dismissed