Skip to content


Ganga Bai Vs. MatadIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR9All613
AppellantGanga Bai
RespondentMatadIn and ors.
Excerpt:
practice - pleader--vakalatnama--pleader handing over his brief to another--civil procedure code, sectins 36, 37, 39, 635--rule of court of 22nd may 1883. - - by section 635 of the code it is distinctly provided that 'nothing in this code shall be deemed .to interfere with the power of the high court to make rules concerning advocates, vakils, and attorneys......opinion it was not, and we do not think that the argument urged against its validity based upon the provisions of sections 36, 37, and 39 of the civil procedure code has any force. by section 635 of the code it is distinctly provided that 'nothing in this code shall be deemed . . to interfere with the power of the high court to make rules concerning advocates, vakils, and attorneys.' the rule now impeached was passed to facilitate the work of the court and for the convenience of the pleaders practising before it, and was, in our opinion, fully within the powers conferred by section 635. we think, therefore, that mr. sris chandra was entitled to be heard on behalf of mr. baroda prasad.
Judgment:

Edge, C. J. and Straight, Brodhurst, Tyrrell and Mahmood, JJ.

1. The simple question to be determined is whether the rule mentioned in the referring order was beyond the power of this Court to make. In our opinion it was not, and we do not think that the argument urged against its validity based upon the provisions of Sections 36, 37, and 39 of the Civil Procedure Code has any force. By Section 635 of the Code it is distinctly provided that 'nothing in this Code shall be deemed . . to interfere with the power of the High Court to make rules concerning advocates, vakils, and attorneys.' The rule now impeached was passed to facilitate the work of the Court and for the convenience of the pleaders practising before it, and was, in our opinion, fully within the powers conferred by Section 635. We think, therefore, that Mr. Sris Chandra was entitled to be heard on behalf of Mr. Baroda Prasad.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //