Coutts Trotter, J.

1. When this case first came on for hearing the defendant was represented by Mr. M.K. Ramaswami Iyer, Attorney-at-law and the plaintiff by Mr. Venkatasubba Row, Vakil. Mr. M.K. Ramaswami Iyer applied for an adjournment and on this being opposed, he claimed the right, as an attorney-at-law, to conduct his clients case in the suit and to have a right of audience. Mr. Venkatasubba Row opposed this and maintained that an attorney-at-law has no right of audience in the trial of a suit on the Original Side. To this, Mr. M, K. Ramaswami Iyer replied that he was prepared to show not only that he himself as an attorney-at-law had a right of audience but that Mr. Venkatasubba Rao, a Vakil, had none. I was informed that the question was one which had arisen in this Court before ; but as the parties informed me that it was desired to make this a test case to go before the ultimate tribunal and as I was quite ignorant of what had been said or decided when it was discussed before, I thought it better that notice should go to the Barristers, Attorneys and Vakils associations respectively that I would hear their representatives if they desired to be heard as amici curiae.