JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule was granted calling upon the Sub-Deputy Magistrate to show cause why his two orders of the 20th August 1902, prohibiting the Petitioner from appearing in two cases as a mukhtear should not be set aside. It appears that on the 20th August first in the case of one Sattya Bewah against Narendra Ghaki and again in the case of one Kini Dasi against Ram Chand Adak, he passed an order refusing him (the Petitioner) permission to appear. It is stated in the petition also that on the same day he stated generally that he would not allow the Petitioner to appear in any case before him. The Sub-Deputy Magistrate has sent in an explanation in which he admits that the first two orders were passed by him but he makes no reference to the general order alleged to have been made refusing to allow the Petitioner to appear before him in any case. 2. From the explanation it is clear that the orders in question were passed not in consequence of any thing that happened in the two cases which were before him on the 20th August but in consequence of an unpleasantness which had arisen in another case on the 7th August between the Petitioner and another pleader or mukhtear. In our opinion the Sub-Deputy Magistrate was not justified in passing the orders complained of. If the Petitioner had been guilty of misconduct calling for punishment on the 7th August, it was, we think, the duty of the Sub-Deputy Magistrate to have dealt with the matter on its own merits giving the Petitioner an opportunity of defending himself if so advised. It was unfair to punish the Petitioner for any thing that he may have done on the 7th of August by passing orders refusing to allow him to appear in the cases, which came on after that date. The orders are set aside, and rule is made absolute.