JUDGMENT

Lort-Williams, J. - This is an appeal from the Master, who has refused to admit a plaint on the ground that it is not in accordance with the rules of pleading laid down in the Civil Procedure Code-and discloses no cause of action. He pointed out the defects to the attorney and asked him to amend the plaint and present it again so that the necessary alterations could be made before any costs had been incurred by the defendant.

2. The attorney presented the plaint again, but in its original form unaltered, saying that his client declined to rectify the defects, and had been advised to prefer an appeal and asked the Master to record his reasons for refusing to admit the plaint. This the Master has done fully upon the back of the plaint.

3. I am surprised at the attitude adopted by the attorney and the advocate who drew the plaint. The Master gave them an opportunity to put the plaint in order at a time when this could be done without burdening the client with any costs. The client's only interest in the form of the plaint is to see that it is drawn in such a way that it is immune from attack. Instead of availing themselves of this opportunity, so fairly given them by the Master, they have chosen to incur further costs in disputing his decision. I trust that the unfortunate client will not be asked to pay them, and that the prestige of the advocate and the attorney will not be defended at the cost of the client.

4. I feel sure that neither advocates nor attorneys have any conception of the wide divergence of pleadings in this country from the standard set in England, whence the rules came, and where they have been in constant use and practice for many years. I have no hesitation in saying that Courts and practitioners in England would regard as little less than fantastic a large number of the pleadings drawn in this country. They would be the subject of repeated attacks by the opposing solicitors and counsel during interlocutory proceedings, and unless altered drastically by this process, would certainly be rejected by the Court. I should have thought that advocates in this country could and would have satisfied themselves of the truth of these observations if they had any doubt about it by the simple process of comparing their pleadings with the forms given for example in Bullen & Leake. I think that the explanation of this curious disinclination of advocates to try and improve their pleadings must be that the importance of the art of pleading is insufficiently realized in this country. It is at least as important, as any part of the duties of an advocate. Moreover, it demands a high degree of skill, and the final form of any pleading should be settled only by advocates who have the necessary skill and experience.

5. The need for improvement in pleading was emphasized by the Civil Justice Committee in the following words: ,

The main defects are prolixity, argumentativeness, a disclosure of immaterial facts and a suppression of material facts, which result in a failure to disclose the real nature of the case set up * * * * There is no recognized authority in India from which a practitioner can obtain the assistance in preparing pleadings which an English lawyer enjoys.

The framers of the CPC hoped that the use of the forms inserted in Appendix A would afford sufficient guidance.

The use of these forms is consistently neglected; but in any circumstances, those who have no other direction will not obtain satisfactory results from their study.

The first requisite is to train pleaders to draft and this training will be assisted appreciably by the preparation of a work on pleadings in India on the lines of Bullen & Leake.

6. That was written over five years ago. During the interval, the market has been flooded with legal works on every subject but one, and of every degree of usefulness or the reverse. Many subjects have-received so much attention that during that comparatively short period several exhaustive works of prodigious size hav