JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition on behalf of certain pleaders practising in the Munsif's Court at Sudharam, complaining of a decision passed by one of the Munsifs on that place in what is described in that decision as a "miscellaneous non-judicial case." The complaint which these pleaders made to the Munsif was as to the conduct of certain mukhtears, who according to the statements made by the pleaders, had been constantly encroaching upon the functions, rights and privileges of the pleaders. Among other matters, they asked that proceedings might be taken against the said mukhtears under sec. 32 of Legal Practitioners' Act in respect of acts which they had been performing in violation of the provisions of the said Act. It is not necessary to refer to all the matters which were brought to the notice of the Munsif, nor to the observations which the Munsif has made in respect to such matters with the exception of only one matter which, we think, deserves some notice; that matter is referred to in the 5th and 7th prayers of the petition presented to the Munsif. In those prayers, the pleaders asked that the Court should be pleased to pass orders as to the conduct of mukhtears who had been acting in contravention of the rules of the High Court defining the powers and functions of the mukhtears. The Munsif in dealing with this particular matter has, we think, very properly held that though the mukhtears had been acting in proceedings under secs. 103, 108, 244, 278, 332 and 335 of the Code as if they were pleaders, they had either the express or the implied permission of the Court and therefore no proceedings ought to be taken against them under the Legal Practitioners' Act in respect to such acts. But the matter which the Munsif does not seem to have considered, and, which we are of opinion he should consider, if hereafter the question should arise before him, is whether the mukhtears should generally be allowed to perform some of the duties and functions of pleaders which apparently they have been allowed to do for sometime together. But the matter which the Munsif does not seem to have considered, and, which we are of opinion he should consider, if hereafter the question should arise before him, is whether the mukhtears should generally be allowed to perform some of the duties and functions of pleaders which apparently they have been allowed to do for sometime together. Rule 34 framed by this Court in regard to Legal Practitioners after defining what should be the functions, powers and duties of mukhtears practising in the Subordinate Courts, says as follows:--"A mukhtear shall not be allowed to address the Court except for the purpose of stating the nature and effect of his application or to offer any legal argument or examine witnesses without the leave of the Court specially given." It is obvious that special leave must, according to this rule, be obtained by a mukhtear who might be desirous of offering any legal argument or examining any witness, from the Court in the particular case in which he may be engaged. But it appears upon the proceeding of the Munsif, that it had never been the practice to apply for and obtain such leave in each case and it seems to have been assumed that it had been accorded for all cases, as a matter of course : This, we think, is a very objectionable practice indeed, and in direct violation of the provisions of the rule to which we have just adverted, and we recommend that, in future, the Munsif will bear in mind the provisions of the rule in question, and will see that they are strictly observed. We need hardly add that it is not in every case that such permission ought to be given. It should be given only in exceptional cases and for sufficient reason. Let a copy of the remarks that we have just made be sent to the Munsif concerned.