AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question is whether an Advocate of this Court is exempted under Order III, Rule 4, Clause (3) of the C.P.C. from presenting any document empowering him to act on behalf of his client.
The only point which arises is whether the reference in that rule" to the High Courts established in India under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, includes the Patna High Court which was established not under the provisions of that Act but under the" provisions of the Government of India Act, 1915. There can be no doubt that under the provisions of Sections 45 and 47 of the Government of India Act, 1919 and since the amendment of the General Clause Act, 1897 by the Repealing and Amending Act XVIII of 1919 any reference in an Act of the Indian Legislature either to an earlier Act of the Indian Legislature or to an Act of the British Parliament which has been repealed and re-enacted by a subsequent enactment must be taken as a reference to the subsequent enactment in so far as it re-enacts the repealed Act and in fact under the Government of India Act 1919, it is clear that any reference in an Act of the Indian Legislature to the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 must now be taken as a reference to the repealing and re-enacting enactment of 1915 as now amended and known as the Government of India Act.
It is clear, therefore, that an Advocate of the Patna High Court is not required to present any document empowering him to act under the rules as they now exist.