Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court

"While the conduct of Mr. Rathore was unfair in having retained the entire amount of Rs.60,000/- instead of adjusting his fee, the fact remains that the Plaintiff/Appellant had also not led any evidence, to show that the professional fee was ever paid to C.S. Rathore," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that an advocate is entitled to recover agreed professional fees even if a formal fee bill is not proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, provided that oral evidence and the circumstances of the case sufficiently establish that the fee was settled and remained unpaid.

A single-judge bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that when there is a consensus between the parties regarding the fee amount, the court can rely on oral testimony to decree a counterclaim for recovery of such dues.

The appellant, Prem Singh, had engaged the respondent, advocate C.S. Rathore, to challenge his termination from service through a writ petition and subsequent contempt proceedings. During the contempt proceedings, the employer settled the dispute by paying Rs. 80,000, out of which Rs. 60,000 in cash was received by the advocate on behalf of the client. The advocate retained the cash amount, prompting the client to file a suit for recovery. In response, the advocate filed a counterclaim for Rs. 36,000, asserting it was his unpaid professional fee for the two litigations.

The primary question before the court was whether the First Appellate Court could decree a counterclaim for professional fees based on oral evidence when the trial court had rejected the claim for lack of documentary proof of the fee bill. The court was also called upon to determine if the advocate’s retention of the client’s money, though "unfair," absolved the client of the liability to pay the agreed professional fees.

Advocate Required To Act Fairly When Handling Client’s Funds

The court expressed its displeasure regarding the advocate’s conduct in retaining the entire settlement amount received in cash. It noted that the advocate was required to "fairly return the amount and then seek the sum of Rs.36,000/- as his fee, or adjust his fees and return the balance amount." The bench remarked that it was unfortunate that an advocate had indulged in such practices despite the directions of the court in earlier proceedings to file a formal receipt.

Recovery Of Professional Fees Based On Oral Evidence

The court analyzed the findings of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) regarding the counterclaim. It noted that while the trial court had dismissed the counterclaim because the original fee bill (Mark DW1/A) was not proved, the First Appellate Court correctly identified a consensus between the parties. The evidence showed that the parties had agreed on a fee of Rs. 25,000 for the Writ Petition and Rs. 11,000 for the Contempt Petition.

Non-Payment Of Fees Established Despite Technical Defects In Evidence

The bench emphasized that the case did not strictly hinge on whether the fee bill was formally proved under the Indian Evidence Act. Justice Krishna observed that the oral evidence sufficiently established that the appellant had failed to pay the professional fee as settled. The court pointed out that the appellant, in his pleadings or evidence, had not stated "even an iota about the fee agreed or how and on what date he had paid the professional fee."

Court Distinguishes Between Unfair Conduct And Legal Entitlement To Fees

While the court categorized the respondent-advocate’s conduct in retaining the cash as "unfair," it held that this did not extinguish his right to the agreed remuneration. The bench noted that the respondent only raised the formal claim for fees once the suit for recovery was filed against him, yet the liability of the client to pay for professional services rendered remained a factual reality established during the trial.

Absence of Substantial Question of Law in Second Appeal

The High Court reiterated the limitations of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It held that the appreciation of evidence by the First Appellate Court was sound and did not suffer from perversity. Since the findings were based on a concurrent understanding of the agreed fee structure and the clear absence of proof of payment by the client, the court concluded that no substantial question of law was raised.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The court upheld the decree allowing the advocate to recover Rs. 36,000 as professional fees, which was directed to be adjusted against the Rs. 60,000 recovery decree in favor of the client. The ruling underscores that professional fee claims by advocates can be sustained on the strength of oral evidence and established consensus, even in the absence of formally proved documentary bills.

Date of Decision: 03rd June, 2026