( 1 ) THIS order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 392 and from 404 to 416, all of 1963,

( 2 ) THE petitioners in all these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were until lately appearing for parties in cases in the subordinate courts at Indore after obtaining general powers of attorney from parties, and in some cases special equivalent Citation: powers of attorney. In July 1963 a complaint was received by the District Judge of indore from the Bar Association, Indore, stating that the petitioner Badri Prasad, in M. P. No. 329 of 1963, and other persons, under the cover of general powers of attorney and also in some cases special powers of attorney, were appearing for parties in cases and practising as legal practitioners for them, and that they also attired themselves as lawyers. Thereupon the learned District Judge held an inquiry into the matter. He directed all the petitioners to furnish him a list of cases in which they were appearing in the various subordinate courts as recognised agents. On the basis of the information supplied by the petitioners, the learned District judge found that the petitioner in each case had obtained a number of general and special powers of attorney from several persons and was appearing on their behalf in a number of cases pending in various courts. The District Judge then asked each petitioner to select one general power of attorney and one special power of attorney which he desired to utilise for his appearance on behalf of the party or parties giving these two selected powers of attorney. No petitioner made any election. Consequently, on 9th July 1963, the learned District Judge made an order prohibiting the petitioner-Badriprasad from appearing in any case in any court on the strength of any Mukhtyar-Nama (power of attorney) in his favour. He also passed on 17th October 1953 a similar order prohibiting the other petitioners from appearing in any case. The petitioners now pray that the said orders of the District judge be quashed by the issue of writs of 'certiorari'.

( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that under Order 3, Rule 2, Civil Procedure code, as amended in this State, no restriction was placed on their appearance as recognised agents for several parties in their cases, after obtaining from them general powers of attorney; that is recognised agents they only did what Order 3, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. permitted them to do; that they never practised as a legal practitioner under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, and never made it a business of appearing as a pleader or a Muhhtyar under that Act; and that merely because they appeared in courts for more persons than one under the authority conferred on them by general powers of attorney, it could not be said that they were mukhtyars under the Act of 1879 or were practising as a Muhhtyar. It has also been urged that the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), does not define "muhhtyar"; that under Section 11 of the Act the high Court is empowered to made rules from time to time declaring what shall be deemed to be the functions. powers and duties of Mukhtyars practising in the subordinate courts; that no such rules have been framed by this court; that in the absence of such rules it cannot be said of any person with reference to the kind of activity in which he is engaged, that he is practising as a Mukhtyar within the meaning of the Act; that the learned. District Judge had no power at all to made the orders that he did against them; and that even in regard to any person practising in any court as a pleader or Mukhtyar in contravention of Section 10 of the Act, the District Judge had no power under the Act of debarring him from equivalent Citation: appearing in any court as a pleader or a Mukhtyar and such a person could only be punished under Section 32 of the Act by the Court before which a contravention of section 10 is committed by the person. The peti