(1.) This Rule raises an important question as to the authority of a Mukhtear to present a plaint or a written statement. On the 18th May 1911, six Pleaders practising in the Civil Courts at Kishengunj, represented to the Munsif that a Mukhtear, Jamsed Ahmed, had signed and filed written abatements in two rent suits and another Mukhtear, Idateq Hossein, had signed and filed plaints in two money suits. The Pleaders contended that this was in violation of the rules framed by the High Court and prayed that proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act might be taken against the Mukhtears concerned for unprofessional conduct. On the 9th June, the Munsif recorded an opinion to the effect that Civil Court Mukhtears were entitled to file plaints and written statements under their signatures, and that as the privilege had been conferred by the High Court, it could not be taken away. The Munsif farther expressed the opinion that if his predecessors-in-office had made a standing order to the contrary, it most be deemed ultra vires. The Pleaders then applied to the District Judge and prayed that the order of the Munsif might be set aside as erroneous. On the 8th June 1912, the District Judge recorded an opinion to the effect that the expression of opinion by the Munsif was clearly erroneous, because though the Mukhtears could present a plaint or tender a written statement in Court, they were not competent to sign the pleadings. The District Judge farther stated that, if in future, the Mukhtears exceeded the powers, duties and functions assigned to them by the Rules of the High Court, proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act would be taken against them. We are now invited by the Mukhtears to review the order of the District Judge and discharge it as made erroneously and without jurisdiction. In our opinion, there is no room for controversy that the District Judge has taken a correct view of the privileges of Mukhtears.
(2.) Under Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, it is competent to this Court, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, to make rules from time to time, declaring what shall be deemed to be the functions, powers and duties of Mukhtears practising in the subordinate Courts. The rules now in force are to be found in Chapter XI of the General Rules and Circular Orders, Volume I, page 291. Section 34 of these Rules defines the functions, powers, and duties of Mukhtears practising in the subordinate Courts. Clause (4) of the section lays down that a Mukhtear may present a plaint including any documents that may be attached to it and receive it back if it be rejected or returned. Clause (7) provides that Mukhtears may tender a written statement and receive it back again if it be rejected or returned. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Mukhtears that the presentation of a plaint and the tendering of a written statement include the signing of these pleadings. In our opinion, there is no foundation whatever for this contention.
(3.) Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. Rule 1 of Order VIII provides for the presentation of a written statement by the defendant. Rale 14 of Order VI requires every pleading to be signed by the party or his Pleader, if any. This clearly includes both the plaint and the written statement, because under Rule 1 of Order VI, a pleading means a plaint or a written statement. The term Pleader is defined in Section 2, Clause 15, to mean any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court; this clearly does not include a Mukhtear. Consequently, a pleading cannot be signed by a Mukhtear. The written statement as also the plaint may be presented or tendered by a Mukhteir but neither can be signed by him. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the view taken by the District Judge is correct and must be upheld. It has been suggested, however, that in cases in which there is no Pleader, or the plaint has to be signed by the plaintiff alone, it may be presented, when so signed, by the Mukhtear with a note that it is presented by him. This is a matter with which, we cannot deal at this stage. It is sufficient for us to hold that the claim of the Mukhtears to sign the pleadings is unfounded. In what manner the presentation of a pleading by a Mukhtear may be made is a matter to be determined when the occasion arises. In the view of the matter we take, it is unnecessary to consider whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to deal with the question, because even if he had not, this Court would be prepared to pass the same order.