The Delhi High Court has dismissed a second appeal filed by Prem Singh in a long-running dispute with advocate C.S. Rathore over professional fees arising from litigation that concluded more than a decade ago. The Court held that the evidence on record supported the finding that the agreed legal fee of ₹36,000 had not been paid to the advocate.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the judgment on June 3, 2026.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to proceedings initiated by Prem Singh after the termination of his employment. He had engaged advocate C.S. Rathore to represent him in a writ petition and later in contempt proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
According to Prem Singh, a settlement amount of ₹80,000 was paid by his former employer during the contempt proceedings. He alleged that while ₹20,000 was sent to him through a demand draft, the remaining ₹60,000 received in cash by his advocate on his behalf was never handed over.
He subsequently filed a recovery suit seeking ₹60,000 along with interest.
In response, Rathore denied liability and filed a counterclaim seeking ₹36,000 as unpaid professional fees-₹25,000 for the writ petition and ₹11,000 for the contempt case.
The trial court had decreed Prem Singh’s suit for recovery of ₹60,000 and held that Rathore failed to prove that the cash amount had been returned. However, it dismissed the advocate’s counterclaim for fees.
On appeal, the District Judge agreed that Prem Singh was entitled to recover the ₹60,000. At the same time, the appellate court found that the agreed legal fees remained unpaid and allowed Rathore’s counterclaim for ₹36,000, directing that the amount be adjusted against the decree in Prem Singh’s favour.
Prem Singh then approached the High Court challenging only the decree granting the advocate’s fee claim.
Examining the record, the High Court noted that both sides accepted that legal fees of ₹36,000 had been agreed upon for the two cases.
Justice Krishna observed that while Rathore’s conduct in retaining the entire compensation amount instead of adjusting his fee and returning the balance was “unfair,” that issue had already been decided in the recovery proceedings.
The Court further noted:
“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.”
The Court found that the plaintiff neither specified when the fee was paid nor produced any material to substantiate such payment.
The judgment also emphasized that the dispute was not merely about proving a fee bill but about whether the agreed professional fee had actually been discharged.
“The oral evidence sufficiently established that the Plaintiff failed to pay the professional fee, as was settled by them,” the Court observed.
Holding that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence, the Delhi High Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference in a second appeal.
The Court upheld the decree granting recovery of ₹36,000 towards professional fees to advocate C.S. Rathore and dismissed Prem Singh’s appeal.
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Prem Singh v. C.S. Rathore
Case Number: RSA 91/2025
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: 03 June 2026
