Judgment :- Rule 2 provides that any application made before the Court should be in English and any documents which are not in English, typed copies of such documents in English translation shall be filed before the Court. However, this Rule has a proviso which provides that "Provided that such translations would not be necessary if the documents are in Marathi and if the party or the Advocate undertakes that English translations would be supplied whenever an order in that respect is made by the Court in a particular proceeding." It appears that this proviso was not a part of the Rule but was added by a Notification in the year 1986. This proviso is the subject-matter of controversy. A Learned Division Bench of this Court held this proviso to be unconstitutional whereas another Learned Division Bench has not agreed with the views of the said Bench. We have perused the orders of both the Learned Division Benches and we feel that since one Bench did not agree with the other Bench, a reference was made to Full Bench and as a result the matters have come before this Bench. Since no question has been framed in the order of reference and, therefore, we frame the following question: "Q. Whether the proviso to Rule 2(i) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 is unconstitutional?" Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner supports the Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court also supports the Rule as the High Court has framed the said Rule. There is no counsel appearing who holds the view that the Rule is ultra vires. The Court would appreciate that all the aspects of the matter are argued so that the Court reaches to the correct conclusion as the question itself is important. Therefore, we request Shri Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate, to assist the Court in the present matter as an amicus curiae. Let the papers be served on Shri Dada. Shri Dada can appoint on record Advocates of his choice. The matter shall be listed on 4-9-2009, at 3:00 p.m.