ABDUL QUADER CHANNA Versus HAROON LATEEF

1. The circumstances under which this revision application has arisen are that a case under section 420, 468, and 471, P.P.C. had been registered against the respondent No.l on the complaint of the management of Messrs Allied Bank Limited as a consequence where of the respondent No.l was arrested by F.I.A. The respondent No.l engaged the applicant as his counsel for moving his bail application before the Court. Some time later the applicant filed a suit before the Small Causes Court, Karachi, being suit No.503 of 1982, for recovery of Rs.4,000 against the respondent averring in the plaint that the applicant had been engaged by the respondent No.l through respondents No.2, 3 and 4 to render professional services to the respondent No.l against a fee of Rs.4,000 but after such services had been rendered by the applicant, the respondents failed to make any payment of fee to the applicant as promised. Consequently a suit was filed as indicated above.

2. The learned Judge Small Causes Court vide his Judgment dated 29‑8‑1984, came to the conclusion that the case of the applicant against the respondent had not been established and therefore the suit of the applicant was dismissed.

3. Before this Court Mr. S. Hamid H.ussain, learned counsel for the applicant has very candidly conceded that no case has been established by the applicant against the respondents No.2 to 4; however his argument is, that the learned Judge, Small Causes Court was not justified in dismissing the suit against respondent No.l as well since there is sufficient evidence to establish a case against him.

4. Although the evidence recorded by the learned Small Causes Court is not before this Court as the same has not been received with the record of the case, but I find from the judgment of the learned Small Causes Court that applicant's statement that he had been engaged to appear as an advocate by the respondent No.1 against payment of professional fee of Rs.4,000 has not been rebutted by the respondent No.l. No doubt, according to the judgment, the applicant had conceded that he had not met the, respondent No.l before submitting a bail application in the Court on his behalf, butt the same cannot lead to a necessary inference that no fee had been settled by the applicant. The fact that the respondent No.l had signed a Vakalatnama, authorising the applicant to plead his case on his behalf also cannot be ignored. Moreover, settlement of Rs.4,000 as professional fee payable by respondent No.l has not been specifically denied by the latter. In view of. this evidence, the inference drawn by ‑the learned Small Cause Courts does not appear to be well founded. ,

5. For the aforesaid reasons I allow this revision and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Small Causes Court and decree the suit for payment of Rs.4,200 by the respondent No.l. The judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court so far as it relates to defendants No.2 to 4 is, however, maintained. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

6. H.B.T./A‑299/K Revision allowed.