NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusA.K. SAXENA

                                                                                 A
                      NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                        V.

                                 A.K. SAXENA

                              NOVEMBER 7, 2003
                                                                                 B
              [S.N. VARIAVA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]


           Advocate-Claim for fee-Withholding papers of client-Advocate
    seeking leave of court to be discharged as counsel of party-Stating that he
    will return the papers ofthe client on payment ofhis fees-High Court granting C
    leave for being discharged and directing the party to pay full fees of the
    Advocate-Held, it is not for supreme Court, as it was not for the High Court,
    to adjudicate upon a disputed question offact-High Court should not have
    given the directions it did also because at the time the High Court passed the
    order, a writ petition regarding claim for fees of the Advocate was pending D
    before it-It will be open for the Advocate to file appropriate proceedings for
    recovery of his fees-Advocate-Lien over papers of client.

         R. D. Saxena v. Bairam Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264, relied on.
1
'         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8957 of2003.           E
         From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.2002 of the Allahabad High
    Court in C.M. Application No.97056/200I F.A From O.No. 24 of 1999.

         Dr. A.M. Singhvi, J.R. Medha and Pranab Kumar Mullick for the
    Appellant.
                                                                                 F
         Pramod Swarup, Ms. Pareena Swarup and Praveen Swarup for the
    Respondent.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         Leave granted.                                                          G

          This appeal is against a judgment of the High Court dated 3rd April,
    2002. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent was an advocate on
    panel of the appdlants. As such a number of matters used to be assigned to
                                       387                                       H
     388                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. S S.C.R.

A him It appears that some dispute arose between the appellants and the
     respondent as a result of which the respondent was asked to return all papers.
     The respondent was willing to return the papers provided that all his fees
     were paid.

           It appears that when appeal from Order No. 24 of 1999 was on the
B Board of the High Court, the respondent moved an application before the
     High Court saying that he has been· asked to return the files and therefore h~
     may be discharged on payment of his full fees. On such application, the High
     Court relying on earlier judgments passed the following order:
                                                                                           l
c                "In view of the above decisions of this Court, the applie&tion of
             Sri A.K. Saxena is allowed and he is granted leave for being discharged
             as counsel for the appellant. However, the appellant New liidia
             Assurance Co. Ltd., shall pay his full fees. On payment of full.fees,
             he wiU immediately return the files as required, by the appellant
             company in letter, Annexure 2."
D
       · After this appeal .was filet by an order dated 9th October, 2003, this .
    ·Court directed the respondent to return all the files. We are informed that all
     the files have been returned. Learned counsel for the respondent insists that
     full fees for all the matters must be paid to him.·
E          Learned senior counsel for the appellants states that no fees is payable
     to the respondent. In our view, it is not for this Court, as· it was not for the
     High court, to adjudicate upon·such a disputed question of fact. The High
     Court should not have given the directions it did also because at the time the
     High court passed the impugned order, a writ petition No. 27380 of2001 was
F    pending. In this writ petition the respondent had claimed payment of his fees.

          ·This. case is fully covered by a decision of this Court in R.D. Saxena_
     v. Bairam Prasad Sharma reported in [2000) 7 SCC 264 wherein this Court
     has held that advocates have no lien over the papers of their clients. It is held
     that at the most the advocate may resort to Legal remedies for unpaid .
G    remuneration. It has been held that the right of the litigant to have the files _ .
     returned to him is a corresponding counterpart of the professional duty of the
     advocate and that dispute regarding fees would be a !is to be decided in an
     appropriate proceeding in Court.

H                                        --
           We do not go into this question as to whether or not fees are payable
            NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. A.K. SAXENA               389
to the respondent. It will be open for the respondent to file appropriate A
proceedings for recovery of his fees. The fact that, because of the impugned
order, he has withdrawn his earlier writ petition would not preclude him from
filing any other appropriate proceeding. In view of the above, the impugned
order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

R.P.                                                      Appeal allowed B