DEVATA PRASAD SINGH CHAUDHURI AND OTHERS versus THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 29-08-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
3S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
305 
DEVATA PRASAD SINGH CHAUDHURI AND 
OTHERS 
v. 
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
JUDGES OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT 
(B. ·P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Mukhmr-Right to 
practise in 
Civil Court-Legal 
Practitioners Act, 1879 (XV ill of 1879), ss. 9, Ji-General 
Rules and Circular Orders of the Patna High Court, Oh. 111 
Part VII, r. 2. 
Section 9 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, entitles a 
duly enrolled Mukhtar to "practise" in any Civil Court, and 
s. 11 thereof empowers the High Court to make rules declaring 
what shall be deemed to be the "functions, 
powers and 
duties" of Mukhtars practising in the subordinate Courts. 
Rule 2 framed under s. 11 lays down that a Mukhtar shall not 
be allowed to address any Civil Court except for the purpose of 
"stating the nature and effect of his application or to offer 
any legal argument or to examine any witness" without the 
leave of the Court. The petitioners contended that r. 2 was in 
excess of the rule-making power under s. 11 and was an 
unreasonable restriction on their rights under Art. 19 ( l) (g) of 
the Constitution. 
Held, that ss. 9 and 11 of the Act must be read together 
and the right to 
'~practise" given under s. 9 
cannot be 
dissociated from 
the ''functions, 
powers 
and duties of 
Mukhtars" ·as contemplated under s. 11. 
In declaring what 
shall. be the functions, powers and duties of a Mukhtar the 
High Court may by its rules so delimit them as to regulate 
their right of practice in the Civil Courts, and such delimitation 
is no violation of their fundamental 
right to practise the 
profession as allowed under the Act. 
Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda BoBe, (1953) S.C.R. I, 
explained and distinguished. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 117 of 
1958. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constifotion of 
India. for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
R. K. Cfarg, M. K. Ramamurthi, S. G. Agarwala 
and D. P. Sirtgh, for the petitioners. 
The respondent did not appear. 
1961 
Auguat 29. 
19G/ 
/1,t:ala Pra1:id 
Singh Clkludh11ri 
v. 
'The Jlon'l>U tl~ 
Chit.f Justiu a,1d 
Judzts of tlu 
Palna JJigh Coiirl 
S. K, Da• J, 
306 
SUPREi\IE C'OURT REPOHTS 
[ l!J(ii J 
]f){il. August 2H. The ,J uclgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
S. K. DAS, J.--This is a writ petitiun 011 be-
half of the .Bihar State i\fukhtars' ARsoeiation, 
Patna. and the Vice-Presid\·nt and the General 
:-:lccrotary thereof. The petitio11 has been jicard 
ex-parte as there baa been no appearance on behalf 
of the Chief JuAticc and Judges uf the Patna High 
Court who were cited as respcndcnts to the petition. 
The petitioners contend that certain rul\'8 of the 
Patna High Court ma1le as Jar back as HJ22 under 
e.ll of the Legal Practitioners Act, 18i9 (Act XVIII 
of 18i9), hereinafter referred to as the Act, in 
respect of the functfons, 
powers and duties of 
Mukhtars praetioiug in the subordinate courtB arc 
now invalid and void, U..icause they contravene the 
fw1damontal right of tho petitioners guaranteed 
under i\rt. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India ancl 
are not saved by cl. (u) thereof. The petitioners 
h;we, in particular, challenged the validity of r. 2 
made by the said High Court under s. JI of tho Aot 
and incorporated iu Chapter III, Part Y rI of tho 
General Hules aud Circular Orders of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patrni (Ci\·il), 1922. The petitioners 
pray that an appropriate writ, dil'cction or ord<·r be 
issued by this Court r!ccl<tring that r. :! aforesai<l is 
unconstitutional nnd therefore, void au<l inopern-
ti\·c. 
We shall presently read the rule ; but before 
wo <lo so a few facts which are not in dispute may 
be stated. 
The potitionern state that the llihar ::State 
:.\lukhtars' Association was formed some 30 years 
back with the object of gc1wrally protecting the 
interests of the l\Iukhtars in tho State of Bihar 
J>ractising in the courts subordinate to the High 
Court of Patrni within the meaning of s. 3 of the 
Act. At its various annual confercnres the said 
Association passed resolutions to move tho High 
Court for the remo\·al of tho restriction imposed by 
r. 2 aforesaid on tho right of Mukhtars practising in 
-
L 
-
• 
-
3 S.C.R. . SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
307 
aubordinate civil courts. The llig4 Court did not 
remove the restriction. On July, 27, 1958 at an 
emergent Executive Committee meeting of the 
Association it was resolved to move the Sup

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.