M R SRINIVASA RAU Vs. PICHAI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the District Munsif has made an order prohibiting a second-grade pleader from appearing for the plaintiffs, in Original Suit No. 32 of 1913 on his file.

(2.) The pleader had appeared and acted in a proceeding in the Magistrate s Court under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and had there obtained an order for his client maintaining his possession until he should be disturbed by a Civil Court. Original Suit No. 32 of 1913 was instituted nearly three years after the date of this order by the unsuccessful party in the magisterial proceedings, and the pleader filed the plaint on their behalf and appeared for the purpose of conducting the case, but on the defendant s (his former client s) objection has been prohibited from doing so.

(3.) The District Munsif relies on Rule 277 of the Civil Rules of Practice as justifying his order, and in my opinion he is, in substance, right. Mr. Ramachandra Ayyar contends that this rule being in the Civil Rules of Practice has no application when one of the proceedings in question in a proceeding in a Magistrate s Court. These rules of practice, as is seen by their preamble, are to be applied only in Civil Courts, but here the matter which gives rise to the question is Original Suit No. 32 of 1913, a proceeding in a Civil Court, and I am not inclined to restrict the word "proceeding" in the earlier part of the rule to proceedings in a Civil Court when neither the language of the rule nor the preamble requires that limitation. It was further contended that the suit is not a matter connected with the proceeding before the Magistrate, I have had some doubt on this point, but I agree with Mr. Venkatarama Sastri s argument that the rule is not to be given too narrow a scope, and should be interpreted as liberally as its language will allow and I do not think it is very difficult so hold that Original Suit No. 32 of 1913 is a matter which, to use the words of Hall, V.C., in Little v. Kingswood Collieries Company (1882) 20 Ch. D.,733, "flows out of" the former proceeding and "may be considered as something in the nature of a continuance of, or supplemental to," that proceeding. No doubt the title and not the possession is to be decided in the suit, but that does not affect the present question, for the mere fact that the questions Co be decided are different will not necessarily involve the conclusion that the two proceedings are unconnected. The suit is that which was indicated in the Magistrate s order and so flows out of it; it was necessitated by that order, and it relates to the property with which that order was concerned audit is between the parties to that order.