AIR 1923 MADRAS 188(2)

Madras High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Venkatasubba Rao , J

Legal Practitioners Act (18 of 1879) , S.36— .Petition for taking proceedings under, is not necessary - Opportunity for hearing party, if given, it sufficient compliance with section - Enquiry need not be carried on in manner prescribed by Cr. P. C. Where a petition filed in the District Court to have a person included in the list of touts did not give sufficient particulars as to why his name should be included. Held that under S. 86 of the Legal Practitioners ' Act, it is not necessary: that there should be a petition at all, it doss not contemplate the case of a party making definite allegations against an alleged tout. There is a sufficient compliance with the lection it the alleged tout is called upon to show cause why his name should not be included in the list, provided an opportunity was given to him to rebut the evidence tendered and otherwise to place his case before the Court. S. 36 of the Legal Practitioners' not creates a special jurisdiction, but does not define the details of the mode in which that jurisdiction is to be exercised. The course to be adopted should be such as would do substantial, justice to the parties brought before the Court. An enquiry under S. 86 cannot be conducted in the manner prescribed in Cr. P. C. regarding enquiries altogether of a different nature. .....