Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. This is precisely the right which is now being claimed by the petitioners. It seems to me that at the present time and in the circumstances of this case the objection that the word lien cannot be used to describe the rights claimed by the attorneys over the sum of Rs. 16,000 is merely pedantic. The word has been so used by high authority in numerous decisions and textbooks. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 26, para. 1334 the lien of a solicitor is said to be of three kinds : (1) A passive or retaining lien; (2) a Common law lien on property recovered or preserved by his efforts; (3) a statutory lien enforcible by a charging order. In India the first type of lien or the possessory lien corresponds to the lien described in Section 171, Contract Act. This case is concerned with the common law lien and this lien attaches to property procured by the labour of the solicitor whether or not the property is in the possession of the solicitor. Paras. 1342 to 1345 of Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 26 deal with the Common law lien. In para. 1343 it is said that this lien does not attach to real property but with this exception it attaches to property of every description, "such as for instance, money payable to the client under a judgment." This is precisely, the kind of property involved in the present application and I propose to follow the learned author and describe the solicitor's rights over such property for his unpaid costs as a lien. Thus, if there had been no insolvency proceedings the petitioners would be entitled as a matter of course to ask this Court to direct the payment of their costs out of this sum of Rs. 16,000 before any of it was made over to the client or to anybody else. The Court in such case would act summarily in aid of its officer and would direct payment upon a motion In re Tyabji & Co. (1905) 7 Bom L.R. 547 and Harnandroy Foolchand v. Gootiram Bhuttar (1920) 7 A.I.R. Cal. 122.