JUDGMENT

Baguley, J - This is an application filed by U Ko Ko Gyi. Bar-at-Law, an advocate of this Court, asking that an order passed by the District Judge of Sagaing refusing to allow him to appear in a certain civil regular suit in his Court may be set aside. The facts of the case have to be sought in affidavits filed by U Ko Ko Gyi himself, by San Mya, the respondent and by one U Sain, a pleader who apparently is in the habit of acting as a junior with U Ko Ko Gyi. San Mya is the husband and authorized agent of one Ma Ma Gale, who is interested in the partition of the estate of Paw Shan, deceased. The partition of this estate has been referred to arbitration, and it would appear that some of the parties concerned took exception to the arbitrator's award and desired to file a suit to have the award set aside. Ma Ma Gale was one of the dissatisfied heirs, and San Mya was charged with the task of seeing to the filing of the suit. On 3rd May 1929 he saw D Sein and asked him to introduce him to D Ko Ko Gyi. U Sein took him to U Ko Ko Gyi's house and, leaving him in the sitting room, went into an inner room to see U Ko Ko Gyi. According to U Ko Ko Gyi's affidavit, U Sein came in to him and told him that San Mya was waiting outside to sea him in connexion with Paw Shan's estate, and at the same time told him then that he had already been approached by one of the other heirs to retain U Ko Ko Gyi if litigation arose in connexion with the estate. U Ko Ko Gyi expressed an unwillingness to see San Mya if that were the case, but on U Sein saying that San Mya was a gentleman of some standing, out of courtesy he went to see him with the intention of speaking to him about fees only. He did not mention to San Mya that he had already been approached by the other side. Nevertheless he allowed San Mya to give him an outline of the case, and on U Sein intervening, saying that the fees should be settled first, he said that he would have to know the amount of labour that the case would involve. U Sein or San Mya said that the papers should be shown to U Ko Ko Gyi in order to enable him to settle the-fees. The affidavits filed by both sides agree on this point. San Mya left the house in entire ignorance of the fact that U Ko Ko Gyi was considering appearing for the opposite party.

2. On 5bh May San Mya returned again with all the connected papers. He says that when he saw U Ko Ko Gyi he showed him the file of papers; U KoKo Gyi went through the award and some side notes of his and also the deed of submission to arbitration and other papers, and said that they had good) grounds. He says that he told U Ko Ko Gyi that he had studied the facts of the whole case and showed him the notes taken by him in the course of his preparation for the B.L. Examination with regard to the law of arbitration. He discussed with U Ko Ko Gyi the term of the deed of reference and some important aspects of the award and also told him the line of attack and the probable line of defence coupled with his reasons and arguments. After this U Sein suggested that they had better settle the question of fees as U Ko Ko Gyi had spent about an hour over the case already, and a discussion with regard to fees took place.

3. Then U Sein advised him to consult the other plaintiffs; so he left the house. U Ko Ko Gyi's version of this interview is not exactly the same; he says that San Mya started the conversation by talking about the case without making any reference to fees. In the course of the conversation, he admits San Mya showed him the reference to arbitration and the award, which he glanced over and read in parts. He says he did not read the side notes, and in fact, he does not remember seeing any. He says that San Mya brought out four points against the award, which is obviously his way of referring to what San Mya speaks of as "the facts of the whole case...the line of attack and the probable line of defence." U Ko Ko Gyi says that the discussion was with regard to the four point