JUDGMENT 1. We concur in the decision of this Court in Venkatappayya v. Venkatapathi Appeal No. 230 of 1895 (supra p. 687) and must therefore hold that the fact that no notice of the petition was given to the defendant (the presents petitioners) by the District Judge does not render his order granting leave to sue liable to be set aside if the order was in accordance with law in other respects. We, however, find that leave was granted on an unverified letter, apparently not presented in Court, enclosing a mahazarnamab, purporting to be from certain persons of the Mussalman community of Kurnool. We think that the District Judge acted with material irregularity within the meaning of Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure in treating such a letter as an application under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863. Section 647 of Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that certain formalities of procedure be observed even in miscellaneous applications like the present, which are not suits. We think that an application under Section 18 of the Act XX of 1863 should be duly verified and presented either in person or by pleader, as in the case of plaints. 2. We must therefore set aside the order of the District Judge with costs in this Court.