1. We are not satisfied that the suit is covered by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, but it does not follow that it is not maintainable. Vide Robert Fischer v. Secretary of State for India in Council 3 C.W.N. 161 and Ramahrishna Pattar v. Narayana Patter 26 Ind. Cas. 883. We can see no reason for holding that the present suit does not lie.
2. The order in question is passed by the Deputy Collector in charge of the Cocanada Sub-Division, and debars plaintiff from practising in any, of the village Courts of that Division. Under Section 24 of the Madras Village Courts Act, any person holding a vakalatnamah from a party may appear and plead in a Village Court; and there is no provision in the Act for debarring any one from this privilege.
3. Mr. K.S. Krishnasawami Aiyangar, who appears for the Government Pleader, is unable to support the legality of the order. Whatever general powers of supervision can be inferred from the power of appointment, suspension and removal of Village Munsifs conferred by Sections 7 and 8 of the Madras' Village Courts Act, cannot be held to extend to the passing of an order of this description. It is, No doubt, desirable that bad characters should be prevented from practising in Village Courts and the Act may need amendment; but as it stands, the order is undoubtedly illegal, and in our opinion the District Munsif exercised a correct discretion in granting the declaration sued for.
4. We set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and the lower Appellate Court.