IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.313 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 13, 2011 Shiva Coal Co. & another ..Petitioners Versus Chandan Goel .. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. _________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Question involved in the present petition, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, is very short. It pertains to the calculation of the amount of costs, which the decree holder, respondent herein, is entitled to recover, besides the amount of decree. 2. Respondent-decree holder filed a suit for recovery of a sum of `8800/-, on account of lawyer’s fee against the present petitioner. Trial Court passed a decree for a sum of `2000/- only, with costs and interest Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit. Respondent-decree holder felt aggrieved, because the amount for which the claim was decreed, was much less than the amount claimed. Learned Appellate Court modified the decree and raised the amount of decree from `2000/- to `4131/- and ordered payment of costs, which impliedly included lawyer’s fee also. 3. Respondent-decree holder placed on record certificate of lawyer’s fee in the trial Court before passing of the decree and as per that certificate, lawyer had charged a sum of `11,000/- from the decree holder, on account of fee. A sum of `11,000/- was included in the costs, on account of lawyer’s fee, in the formal decree sheet. 4. Decree holder filed execution petition, seeking recovery of decretal amount of `4131/- , together with interest and costs and he included a sum of `11,000/-, on account of lawyer’s fee, in the amount sought to be recovered. 5. Petitioners filed objections and pleaded that amount of `11000/- could not have been claimed on account of lawyer’s fee, because it was more than the amount that had been claimed in the suit. É3É 6. Executing Court has dismissed the objections, saying it cannot go beyond decree. Petitioners are aggrieved by this order, which is dated 1.7.2011. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. There is a reference to a Notification of this Court in the judgment, which was passed by the Appellate Court, in appeal, according to which in a suit for recovery of money, counsel’s fee cannot be more than 10% of the amount claimed in the suit, where the claimed amount is upto `50,000/-. Now, when there is a notification of this Court, prescribing fee in money suits and the total amount that was claimed in the suit was `8800/-, costs on account of lawyer’s fee could not have exceeded 10% of the suit amount which was `8800/- and, therefore, inclusion of a sum of `11,000/-, as lawyer’s fee in the decree, is apparently illegal, being contrary to the aforesaid Notification and correcting this error apparent on record in the decree would not be going beyond decree, within the meaning of Section 47 CPC. This will be simply an act of correcting an error apparent on the fact of it in the decree. 9. Consequently, petition is allowed and it is ordered that the decree holder shall be entitled to É4É recovery of a sum of `880/-, which is equivalent to 10% of suit amount, on account of lawyer’s fee in the trial Court plus similar amount as lawyer’s fee, in the appellate Court. Petition is dismissed. October 13, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.