The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court's power to make rules and the Registrar's authority to grant leave must be consistent with the provisions of the Act and cannot contradict the statutory requirements.

Collins, C.J.

1. This is a case stated for the opinion of the High Court under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, by the Chief Judge of that Court.

2. On the 23rd November 1885, the High Court declared that under Section 33 of the Presidency Small, Cause Courts Act XV. of 1882 the granting of leave to sue a defendant out of the jurisdiction under Section 18, Clauses (a) and (6) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act XV of 1882 was a non-judicial or quasi-judicial Act within the meaning of that section which might be done by the Rgistrar of the Court of Small Causes, Madras.

3. The question the High Court has to decide is--Has the High Court power to make such a rule, or is the rule, ultra vires?

4. The 33rd section of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act XV of 1882 enacts that, "any non-judicial or quasi-judicial Act which the Code of Civil Procedure as applied by this Act requires to be done by a judge...may be done by the Registrar of the Small Couse Court or by such other officer of that court as that court may from time to time appoint in this behalf." "The High Court may from time to time by rule declare what shall be deemed to be non-judicial and quasi-judicial acts within the meaning of this section."

5. Chapter II of the Civil Procedure Code Sections 15 to 19. regulates the place of saing and those sections are not applied to the Smail Cause Court by the Act XV of 1882 and the reason is obvious, as, by the 18th section of Act XV of 1882, the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to try suits of a civil nature, where the cause of action has arisen either wholly or in part within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court or if any of the defendants at the time of the institution of the suit actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within such local limits provided the leave of the court has been given, or the defendants acquiesce in such institution.

Section 6 of Act XV of 1882 enacts that the Small Cause Court shall be deemed to be a court subject to the superintendence of the High Court, and the High Court shall have in respect of it the same powers as it has under the 24 and 25 Vic, Ch 104, Section 15. That Act gives power to the High Court to make and issue general rules for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts, provided that such rules be not inconsistent with the provisions of any law. Section 652 of the Civil Procedure Code gives the High Court power to make rules consistent with the. Code to regulate any matter connected with the procedure of Civil Courts subject to its superintendence. It is argued by counsel for the plaintiff that either under the 24 and 25 Vic, Ch. 104, or under Section 652 Civil Procedure Code, the High Court has power to make the rule in question. It would be enough to say that the rule does not purport to be made Under the Act or under Section 652, but under the powers conferred by Section 33 of Act XV of 1882--but I am of opinion that neither under the Act nor under Section 652 has the High Court the power contended for. Under Section 18 of Act XV of 1882 it is enacted that the leave of the court must be given--the High Court by the rule has set aside that provision of law and has said that the leave of the Registrar is sufficient; it is impossible to say that a Registrar is a court for such a purpose as this--the duties and powers of a Registrar are strictly defined and limited.

6. It is also impossible in my opinion to say that granting of leave to sue a defendant out of the jurisdiction under Section 18, Clauses (a) and (b) was a non-judicial or quasi-judicial act which the Code of Civil Procedure as applied by this Act requires to be done by a judge.

7. For these reasons, therefore, I hold that the Registrars order granting leave to sue is not a valid leave within the meaning of Section 18 of Act XV of 1882 and that the rule of the High Court of the 23rd November 1885 is ultra vire