MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- A suit for recovery of Rs.2"j,150/-was filed by the respondent against the petitioner. Petitioner failed to file his written statement despite number of opportunities and consequently, its defence was closed under order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. However, claim of the respondent was accepted to the tune of Rs.8,150/- whereas the damages claimed by him to the extent of Rs.
15,000/- as mental torture was refused vide judgment and decree dated 6-3-1983. Respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the appellant Court on 10-1-1984. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Appellate Court has passed the impugned decree illegally. There was no material on the record to establish that the respondent has suffered any damages on account of alleged mental torture, it is further stated that even if the petitioner on account of termination of his services as a counsel has suffered any mental torture no damages could be allowed to him on the account. He argued that the relationship of a client and a counsel is based upon the contract and the counsel acts as an agent of the client. Under the Contract Law, a client has every right to terminate or dispense with the services of a counsel and if that is done, no mental torture can be said to have been suffered by the counsel. He, therefore, submits that as the respondent had no cause of action to claim damages due to any mental torture suffered by him, thus Trial Court had rightly dismissed his claim to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- on the principle of Demnum Sine Injuria.
3. .On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that because the defence of the petitioner was closed, therefore, only option left for the trial Court was to decree the suit as prayed for by the respondent. Appellate Court thus, according to him, has rightly accepted the appeal filed by the respondent.
4. The relationship Between the parties is admittedly that of a client and counsel. Under the law, client has every right to dispense the service of his counsel at any time. Though he is bound to pay the counsel's dispensation for the work done or even promised in that behalf but if the termination has been made, no counsel could be asked for damages on account of any mental torture. Thus no cause of action had accrued in favour of the respondent quo the amount of Rs. 15,000/- claimed in the suit.
5. The Trial Court had rightly refused the respondent any damages on the principle mentioned above, as even proved by the respondent that he has suffered mental torture, he was not entitled to receive that amount.
6. The view taken by the Appellate Court is absolutely erroneous and illegal. The Appellate Court has failed to apply its mind to the nature of the relationship between the parties and has acted in a mechanical manner to award him decree for the full amount as claimed. Learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that the Trial Court should have framed issues before dismissing the claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and that the Appellate Court has rightly decreed his suit. However, he has failed to satisfy me that even if the respondent had been able to prove after framing of issues that he had suffered mantels torture whether amount could be awarded to him on any principle of law.
7. In view of above, the appellate Court has acted with material irregularity and has exercised his jurisdiction not vested him. Consequently, I accept this revision petition by setting aside the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, and upheld' the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. No order as to costs.