Sir John Edge, C.J, and Straight, Brodhurst, Tyrrell, and Mahmood, JJ.:— The only question that has been argued on this reference is as to the power of members of the Bar admitted to the roll of advocates of this Court to take instructions directly from the parties to appeals, and to “act” for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Code on behalf of their clients. It does not appear to us necessary to enter upon a discussion of the practice that prevails and regulates the professional status and proceedings of counsel in England, as it seems to us to be altogether beside the question we have to determine, namely, whether enrolled advocates of this Court are, as such, prohibited from doing all such acts as admittedly may be done by the vakils. By s. 7 of the Letters Patent, powers are conferred upon this Court “to approve, admit, and enrol such and so many advocates, vakils, and attorneys as to the said Court shall [621] seem meet; and such advocates, vakils, and attorneys shall be and are hereby authorized to appear for the suitors of the said High Court, and to plead or to act or to plead and act, for the said suitors, according as the said High Court may by its rules and directions determine, and subject to such rules and directions,” This in plain terms empowers advocates of the High Court to “act.” By s. 8 it is further declared that this Court shall have the power to make rules for the qualification and admission of its advocates, vakils, and attorneys, and to remove or suspend them, and it directs that no person whatever other than such advocates, vakils or attorneys “shall be allowed to act or to plead for or on behalf of any suitor in the said High Court, except that any suitor shall be allowed to appear, plead, or act on his own behalf or on behalf of a co-suitor.” By s. 635 of the Civil Procedure Code it is in specific terms enacted that “nothing in this Code shall be deemed to interfere with the powers of the High Court to make rules concerning advocates, vakils, and attorneys.’ And in s. 39 of the same Act it is declared in terms that “no advocate of any High Court established by Royal Charter shall be required to present any document empowering him to act”—an exemption that does not apply to pleaders. But more than this, s. 2 of the Code defines the term “pleader” as used in the Act “to include an advocate, a vakil, and an attorney of a High Court.” Beading ss. 36 and 39 in conjunction with the interpretation clause and s. 635, therefore, it comes to this, that for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Code an advocate can perform all the duties for a suitor that a pleader may perform, subject to his exemption in the matter of a vakalatnama, and subject, further, to any rules this Court may make regarding him. Not only by the Letters Patent, therefore, but by the Civil Procedure Code, an advocate may “act” for his client in this Court in the manner in that statute set forth, and do all things, that a pleader, i.e, a vakil, may do, provided always that he be upon the roll of the Court's advocates. Referring to the matter more particularly mentioned in the order of reference, we have to concern ourselves with the action of the gentieman whose name is therein mentioned only as an advocate upon our roll, and not as an English barrister. As we have made no rule prohibiting an advocate from taking instructions directly from a suitor, and as [622] his doing so is in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, we think the first objection mentioned in the order of reference had no force and should be disallowed. As to the second, that has been disposed of in another case.