Section 4 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879) does not repeal Section 3 of the Indian Insolvency Act (11 & 12 Vict., C. 21). Section 121 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909) preserves the state of things prevailing on the date of the passing of the Act with regard to the rights and privileges of the practitioners entitled to practise in the Court for the relief of Insolvent Debtors.

Charles Gorden Spencer, Officiating C.J.

1. The question that comes up for our decision in appeal is whether Vakils have aright of audience in the Insolvency Court at the Presidency Town of Madras. We have heard full arguments from Mr. G. Krishnaswami Ayyar, and Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar, on behalf of the Vakils and from Mr. Grant and Mr. Sidney Smith, for the Advocates. The whole question has been dealt with in their arguments exhaustively and in every aspect.

2. Vakils appear and plead on the Original Side of the High Court at Madras, notwithstanding that the Charter of 1800 authorized only three classes of practitioners, namely, (1) bona fide practitioners of the law in the old Court of the Recorder, which was thereby abolished; (2) Barristers-at-Law in England or Ireland; and (3) Attorneys or Solicitors admitted in one of the Courts at Westminster or otherwise capable of acting as well in the character of Advocates as of Attorneys, and the Charter went on to "declare that no other, person or persons whatsoever shall be allowed to appear and plead, or act in the said Supreme Court of Judicature at Madras for and on behalf of such suitors or any of them;" notwithstanding also that, in 1879 the Legal Practitioners Act provided in Section 4 that no Vakil should be allowed to practice under that section before any Judge of the High Court exercising Original Jurisdiction in a Presidency Town.

3. To this day, in the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay, Vakils have no right to practice on the Original Side. How Vakils obtained a footing on the Original Side of the Madras High Court is a matter of history, which is set out in the matter of the petition of Attorneys 1 M. 24 : 11 Mad. Jur. 92 : 1 Ind. Dec (N.S.) 15 and Namberumal Chetty v. Narasimhachari 37 Ind. Cas. 699 : 31 M.L.J. 698 : (1916) 3 M.W.

4. I do not propose to deal in detail with the history of the Original Side. It is sufficient to state that Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Letters Patent of 1862 empowered the High Court to enrol so many Advocates to appear and plead, so many Vakils to appear, plead and act, and so many Attorneys to appear and act, as the Court deemed fit, while Clause 9 of the amended Letters Patent of 1865 empowered the High Court to enrol such and so many Advocates, Vakils and Attorneys as the Court deemed fit, and described the functions of each class of practitioners collectively without the use of the word "respectively"; that, in the rules made on August 28, 1863, under the first Letters Patent, Rule 8 runs thus: "Vakils shall not appear, plead and act for any suit or in this Court in any matter of ordinary original jurisdiction, civil or criminal or in any matter of appeal from any case of ordinary civil jurisdiction or upon review of any criminal case under Clause 25 of the Letters "Patent," but Rules 1, 2, and 3 made on the 1st of October 1863 recognized the right of Vakils to practice on the Original Side; and that Rules 4 and 5 made on July 5, 1866, under the amended Letters Patent of 1865 permitted Vakils admitted under the rules of October 1863 to appear, plead and act for the suitors in all matters over which the Court had any jurisdiction. In In the matter of the petition of Attorneys 1 M. 24 : 11 Mad. Jur. 92 : 1 Ind. Dec (N.S.) 15 it was held in 1875 by a Full Bench that these rules were within. the powers of the High Court : and when the matter came up again in 1916 Courts-Trotter. J. in Namberumal Chetty v. Narasimhachari 37 Ind. Cas. 699 : 31 M.L.J. 698 : (1916) 3 M.W. felt bound to follow the earlier decision. Rule 533 of the Original Side? Rules declares that "a Vakil may appear, plead and act upon all proceedings, whether in Court or in Chambers." There is no mention of the Insolvency Court in any of these rules. In fact historically there is no reason to treat the Insolvency Court as a part or branch of the Original Side.

5. In 1828 Courts were established for the relief of insolvent debtors in the East Indies by the Statute 9, Ge