The cost of litigations become higher depends upon the advocate engaged by the litigant public. When he/she engages a senior counsel of high repute he/she has to pay the fee demanded by them. Litigant public cannot be blamed for approaching senior counsel. It is because the Courts too gives patient hearing only to senior counsels. When the same interpretations/plea is made by an advocate he is not given such a privilege and numerous questions where fired. For example a Writ Petition was moved before a High Court and the Hon'ble Judges where hesitating even to admit the same and the counsel was trying his level best to get it admitted, at last fearing dismissal he withdrew the Writ Petition. Subsequently, the same Writ Petition (not even a single word changed) but was represented by a senior counsel, the Court not only admitted but also granted stay in favour of the petitioner. Legal position is same, averments of Writ Petition is same only thing is the counsel who presented the case. The petitioner-litigant public asked me the reason for disparity, even though I tried to convince him by stating that the senior counsel shall be in a position to interpret and convince the judges. But the petitioner was angry and he told if the Writ petition was admitted at the 1st instance it would have saved him several thousands . . . . the genuine question still agitates in mind . . . for getting succesfful result . . . the question is not law . . . but who narrates the law before the Court of Law gets more attention and prominence . . . . . can any one convince the petitioner/litigant public
The cost is high. It goes on high when litigent passes through various forums. The Advocacy is also costs when a litigent needs a really stuffed one. There must be really independent, voluntary, public intersted groups forums to handle the case of all who are wealthy and poor. So that equal distribution of justice to all will be possible with the common pool sysem.
Dear Piraviji, your narration is that the Judge apply his mind on forms only not the substance.Such attitude prevails in many High courts and in this way there is monopoly of the high courts by some few advocates and this has to be done away.Why should the judge hear to some advocates only?
The view point of supreme court is correct The economically backward peoples stand stalemate before our judiciary system.It is the apt time to take decision by bar councils and Advocates about expenses and its impact.If fees mentioned in the Act is followed and make it visible in court premises will help the litigants to some extent.
I honour the view of the Hon'ble court but I differ from the views of some of my learned friends. Fee of an advocate does not get revised as the salaries of the employees of Govts. or of private sectors or of M.L.As./ M.Ps. so, the fees of advocates can not be said to be the reason of high expenses of litigation. What about increasing court -fees and lack of legal literacy?
How many advocates really charge as per the rates prescribed? Of course, fees of an advocate is not the only reason that increases cost of litigation. But to engage a good senior advocate is certainly a costly affair.