DISTRICT JUDGE OF ANANTAPUR Vs. KVVEMA REDDI (ADVOCATE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two references have been heard together and cari conveniently be dealt with in one judgment. The first reference has been made by the District Judge of Anantapur and the question raised is whether the respondent, who is an advocate of the Bombay High Court, having been enrolled by that Court on the 13 September, 1937, is entitled to practise in the Courts of the Anantapur District. Although he was enrolled by the Bombay High Court he has never practised in that Court subordinate thereto. He has confined his practice entirely to the Courts of the Anantapur District. The second reference has been made by the District Judge of South Kanara. There are here three respondents and all of them were enroled by the Bombay High Court after the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, came into force in that province, as was the case in the first reference, and they have since been made in consequence of the wording of Section 4 of the Legal Practitioners Act. We shall refer to the section in a monent but in passing we may say that if it stood alone a very difficult questin would arise. The attention of the learned Destrict Judges who have made these reference has unfortunately not been drawn to an amendment to Section 38 as amended, is taken into consideration it is quite clear that these advocates are entitled to practise in the Courts subordinate to this Court.

(2.) Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act says : An advocate shall be entitled as of right to practise-- (a) subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 9, in the High Court of which he is an advocte; and (b) save as otherwise provided by Sub-section (2) or by or under any other law for the time being in force, in any other Court in British India and before any other Tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and (c) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under the law for the time being inforce entitled to practise. We are not concerned here with Sub-section (2) which only refers to practice in High Courts. Therefore, an advocate enrolled by any High Court is entitled by virtue of Sub-section (1) to practise in Subordinate Courts of this province, provided that there is no other law which prohibits him doing so.

(3.) Section 4 of the Legal Practitioners Act reads as follows: Every person now or hereafter entered as an advocate or vakil on the roll of any High Court under the Letters Patent constituting such Court or under Section 41 of this Act or enrolled as a pleader in the Chief Court of the Punjab under Section 8 of this Act, shall be entitled to practise in all the Courts subordinate to the Court on the roll of which he is entered and in all revenue offices situate within the local limits of the appellate jurisdiction of such Courtssubject nevertherless, to the rules in force relating to the language in which the Court or office is to be addressed by pleaders or revenue agents; and any person so entered who ordinarily practises in the Court on the roll of which he is entered or some Court subordinate thereto shall, notwithstanding anything herein contained, be entitled as such to practise in any Court in British India other than a High Court on whose roll he is not entered or, with the permission of the Court or in the case of a High Court in respect of which The Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, is in force, subject to rules made under that Act in any High Court on whose roll he is not entered, and in any revenue office. These references have been made by reason of the words: and any person so entered who ordinarily prastises in the Court on the roll of which he is entered or some Court subordinate thereto shall notwithstanding anything herein contained, be entitled as such to practise in any Court in British India other than a High Court on whose roll he is not entered. The respondents have not ordinarily practised in the Bombay High Court or in Courts subordinate thereto and if the section stood alone, it would be doubtful whether they would be entitled to practise in Courts subordinate to this Court. Section 38 of the Legal Practitioners Act makes it quite clear, however that Section 4 does not apply to advocates who have been enrolled under the Indian Bar Councils Act. The words " and except as provided by Section 36, nothine in this Act applies to persons enrolled as advocates of any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act 1926," were added to Section 38 by Section 19 of the Indian Bar Councils Act Consequently Section 4 has no application to advocates enrolled under the Indian Bar Councils Act by any High Court. That being the position Section 4 must be ignored, which means that so far as the respondents are concerned there is no other law for the time being in force wihich prohibits them practising in the subordinate Courts of this Province.