Besides the advocates, attorneys and vakils of the High Courts, there were different classes of legal practitioners ordinarily practising in the district and other subordinate courts. The setting up of a regular hierarchy of civil and criminal courts of varying jurisdictions and importance necessarily led to the creation of different categories of legal practitioners in the mofussil and the paucity of law graduates in those days necessitated the granting of permission to non-graduate lawyers to practise in the inferior courts. Under rules framed by the High Courts under section 6 of the Legal Practitioners act, law graduates who did not possess the additional qualifications required for enrolment as vakil of the High Court and non-graduates who could pass the pleadership examination held by the High court were given certificates entitling them to act and plead as pleaders in the district and other subordinate courts. The pleaders had no entry into the High Court unless after a certain number of years' practice in subordinate courts they became enrolled as High Court vakils. In some of the provinces there were pleaders of several grades e.g., first, second and even third grades. Besides the pleaders, there was and is another class of legal practitioners in the subordinate courts called mukhtars. They were generally persons who had after passing the Entrance Examination corresponding to the Matriculation Examination of the later times passed the Mukhtarhsip Examination held by the High Court. Although their sanads or licences permitted them to practise in all subordinate courts, they were, by reason of the High Court Rules and Orders, mainly, confined to acting and pleading in the criminal courts in the mofussil, a fact which has been made a grievance of in the memoranda filed by them and in the evidence given by the representatives before the committee. These mukhtars were not permitted to plead in any subordinate civil court, not to talk of the High Court. Finally, there was another kind of legal practitioners known as revenue agents who were certificated an enrolled under rules made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under section 17 of the Legal Practitioners act, 1879. Their practice was and is confined to the revenue offices mentioned in their certificates and other offices subordinate thereto. In recent years there has grown up a body of men who appear before the Income-Tax authorities. They are mostly persons well versed in accounts and most of them are not lawyers and did not come within the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.

All the different grades of legal practitioners of the High Court (except the attorneys) and of those of the subordinate courts (except the revenue agents) were and the subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.The attorneys of the High Courts as officers of the court were, in the matters of discipline, dealt with by the High Courts under the Letters Patent. The revenue agents were liable to be suspended or removed from practice by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879), by section 4, empowered an advocate or vakil on the roll of any High Court or a pleader of the Chief Court of the Punjab, to practise in all the courts subordinate to the court on the roll of which he was entered and in all revenue offices situate within the local limits of the appellate jurisdiction of such court subject to the rules in force relating to the language of the court and also to practise in any court in British India other than a High Court on whose roll he was not entered or with the permission of the court in any High Court on whose roll he was not entered and in any revenue office. There was a proviso, however, to the section to the effect that this power would not extend to the original jurisdiction of the High Court in a Presidency town. Section 5 enabled an attorney on the roll of any High Court to practise in all the courts subordinate to such High Court and in all revenue offices within the appellate jurisdiction of such High Court and also to practise in any court in British India other than a High Court on the roll of which he was entered and in any revenue court.

Besides the advocates, attorneys and vakils of the High Courts, there were different classes of legal practitioners ordinarily practising in the district and other subordinate courts. The setting up of a regular hierarchy of civil and criminal courts of varying jurisdictions and importance necessarily led to the creation of different categories of legal practitioners in the mofussil and the paucity of law graduates in those days necessitated the granting of permission to non-graduate lawyers to practise in the inferior courts. Under rules framed by the High Courts under section 6 of the Legal Practitioners act, law graduates who did not possess the additional qualifications required for enrolment as vakil of the High Court and non-graduates who could pass the pleadership examination held by the High court were given certificates entitling them to act and plead as pleaders in the district and other subordinate courts. The pleaders had no entry into the High Court unless after a certain number of years' practice in subordinate courts they became enrolled as High Court vakils. In some of the provinces there were pleaders of several grades e.g., first, second and even third grades. Besides the pleaders, there was and is another class of legal practitioners in the subordinate courts called mukhtars. They were generally persons who had after passing the Entrance Examination corresponding to the Matriculation Examination of the later times passed the Mukhtarhsip Examination held by the High Court. Although their sanads or licences permitted them to practise in all subordinate courts, they were, by reason of the High Court Rules and Orders, mainly, confined to acting and pleading in the criminal courts in the mofussil, a fact which has been made a grievance of in the memoranda filed by them and in the evidence given by the representatives before the committee. These mukhtars were not permitted to plead in any subordinate civil court, not to talk of the High Court. Finally, there was another kind of legal practitioners known as revenue agents who were certificated an enrolled under rules made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under section 17 of the Legal Practitioners act, 1879. Their practice was and is confined to the revenue offices mentioned in their certificates and other offices subordinate thereto. In recent years there has grown up a body of men who appear before the Income-Tax authorities. They are mostly persons well versed in accounts and most of them are not lawyers and did not come within the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.

All the different grades of legal practitioners of the High Court (except the attorneys) and of those of the subordinate courts (except the revenue agents) were and the subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.

The attorneys of the High Courts as officers of the court were, in the matters of discipline, dealt with by the High Courts under the Letters Patent. The revenue agents were liable to be suspended or removed from practice by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

The Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879), by section 4, empowered an advocate or vakil on the roll of any High Court or a pleader of the Chief Court of the Punjab, to practise in all the courts subordinate to the court on the roll of which he was entered and in all revenue offices situate within the local limits of the appellate jurisdiction of such court subject to the rules in force relating to the language of the court and also to practise in any court in British India other than a High Court on whose roll he was not entered or with the permission of the court in any High Court on whose roll he was not entered and in any revenue office.

There was a proviso, however, to the section to the effect that this power would not extend to the original jurisdiction of the High Court in a Presidency town. Section 5 enabled an attorney on the roll of any High Court to practise in all the courts subordinate to such High Court and in all revenue offices within the appellate jurisdiction of such High Court and also to practise in any court in British India other than a High Court on the roll of which he was entered and in any revenue court.