LAWS(PVC)-1922-9-3

R VARADACHARIAR Vs. CRKALYANASUNDARAM AIYAR

Decided On September 08, 1922
R VARADACHARIAR Appellant
V/S
CRKALYANASUNDARAM AIYAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard very full arguments and I proceed to deliver judgment at once.

(2.) This revision Petition arises out of and is connected with an application made to the District Court of Coimbatore by the respondent, a High Court Vakil, to take action under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, XVIII of 1879, against the petitioner who was alleged to be a tout.

(3.) The petitioner complained that the petition filed by the respondent was defective, that it did not contain necessary particulars and that, even if all the allegations made in it against him were true, he would not be a "tout "as the word is defined in the Act, and he applied to the District Court that the petition might be rejected on the ground that the allegations in the petition could not constitute the basis of an enquiry. The District Munsif dismissed the application and it has been argued before me that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry and that he at any rate acted with material irregularity in refusing to order particulars. I have been asked to quash the proceedings.