MUHAMMAD LQBAL Versus RIAZ AHMED PIRZADA
ORDER
SHAFIUR REHMAN (CHAIRMAN.).‑‑ The Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council has by an order dated 16‑6‑1988 referred under section 41(4) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, a complaint filed by Muhammad Iqbal r/o Tatagang against Syed Riaz Ahmed Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record, making allegations of professional misconduct against them.
2. After the evidence concluded and arguments had been heard and before the order could be finalized, Syed Riaz Ahmed Pirzada, respondent No‑1 expired and the proceedings against him have for that reason abated.
3. The complainant made a grievance of the fact that a decree had been passed against him for a sum of Rs. 24,500 by the Civil Judge which had remained intact till the decision of the High Court, when his second appeal stood dismissed on 4‑12‑1985, He engaged Syed Riaz Ahmed Pirzada for fling a Petition for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court who in turn engaged Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, as Advocate-on-record and the Petition for leave to appeal was completed on Ist of March, 1986 and alongwith a stay application was filed on 3rd of March, 1986, It was returned to the Advocate‑on‑Record and thereafter not riled after removing the objection till long after in September, 1987. When the matter came up for hearing before the Supreme Court on 5‑10‑1987, leave to appeal was refused because it was found that the Petition was barred by 430 days and there was no explanation for the delay. The complainant stated that he had been contacting both the respondents in the matter and they had been informing him that the Petition for leave to appeal alongwith stay application had been filed in the Supreme Court and the same was pending there and would soon be coming up for hearing. They both issued certificates to the effect that the matter was pending in the Court in order to be availed of before the executing Court. Ultimately, when the complainant was hard pressed on account of the execution sale of his property, he again approached the Advocate‑on‑Record (Mr. Bhatti) and an application was filed for claiming stay but the same was not entertained with the objection that the Petition for leave to appeal had been returned and was not refiled and the stay application could not proceed without the leave petition. The complainant's grievance was that by this conduct he has been subjected to great torture and difficulties and his cause had been frustrated by the negligent handling of the case by the respondents.
4. On receipt of the complaint notices had issued to the two respondents. Late Syed Riaz Ahmed Pirzada had submitted his reply to the complaint and he stated as hereunder:‑‑
"I have gone through the complaint. There is nothing against me in the complaint. Hence I have no comments to make. The case of the complainant was dismissed as time‑barred."
5. In his reply dated 18th of April, 1988, Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, stated as hereunder:‑‑
"Copy of the complaint and enclosures, if any, have not been forwarded alongwith copy of your letter dated 28‑2‑1988 as referred to by you in your letter dated April 10, 1988 which reached me on 17‑4‑1988..
Please do the needful now to enable me to look into the matter."
On April 23, 1988, he was informed by the Bar Council as hereunder:‑‑
"The copies of the above‑cited Disciplinary complaint and its annexures were sent to you alongwith this office letter No. 3326/PBC/SEC/88 dated 28‑2‑1988 for your report and para-wise comments. However, the same are enclosed again with a request to please do the needful immediately."
In his reply dated 30th April, 1988, Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, gave the following reply:‑‑
"Please refer to your verbal orders for delivering me the papers by hand.
(2) My reply to your letter inviting my comments requires access to case papers. Case pertains to an outstation. Consequently my reply could not be sent and you are losing maturity.
(3) Please be informed that the requisite compliance would be made as soon as I got copies of the relevant papers."
He did not file his comments to the complaint but was examined and his statement was recorded.
6. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Zaidi, Deputy Registrar Supreme Court stated by reference to the record that Civil Petition No. 48‑R of 1986 was filed for the first time on Ist of March, 1986. It was returned the same day for filing it in complete form with the required number of Paper Books within seven days. It was refiled with the Paper Books and treasury challan on 3rd of March, 1986. Notice was given ‑to the Advocate on Record (Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti) for appearance on 6‑7‑1986 before the Registrar. On his failure to appear, by an order dated 6‑7‑1986, the Registrar directed that the Petition be returned for making up the deficiency in court‑fee within one week. It was returned under receipt acknowledged by Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record on 8‑7‑1986. It was not refiled. Instead on 5‑7‑1987, the respondent Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record, filed an urgent application for stay with reference to C.P.LA. 48‑R/86 alongwith which a stay application had also been filed. This application was returned by the Office on 21‑7‑1987 pointing out that the main petition (C.P.L.A. No. 48‑R/86) had not been refiled. It was on 20‑9‑1987 that Mr. Bhatti, the respondent stated that the C.P.LA. remained untraced till 19‑9‑1987, when it was received by him by post. He refiled the same alongwith the stay application but the leave was refused on account of the petition having been refiled with inordinate delay.
7. Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, the respondent, admitted having filed the C.P.LA. on 3‑3‑1986 alongwith a stay application. He further stated that "the complainant did not meet me thereafter till 8‑7‑1986. When the paper books were returned by the Supreme Court Office with two objections, I removed the objections the same day and returned the Papers to the Supreme Court Office. No receipt is provided for refiling the Petition." He also admitted in cross examination that "I did not pursue that urgent application till 8th July, 1986 because I thought that the learned counsel would inform me about it in view of his own availability for arguing the matter".
8. From the evidence brought on record it is clear that Mr. Bhatti, the respondent was engaged as Advocate‑on‑Record in the case, that he had filed the C.P.LA. in the Supreme Court registry with an application for stay in the matter.
He also admits that the Petition was returned to him soon after its presentation but claims that he refiled it the very same day after removing the objections. There does not appear to be any indication of his having refiled it. Had he refiled it, he would have pursued the fixation of the urgent application. He admits that he did not pay any attention to the fixation part till 8‑7‑1987. He was contacted by the complainant making a grievance of the inattention of his urgent application. Even at that stage he filed another application for stay, claiming for urgent relief and was told when he presented it that the main petition had not been refiled and was not pending. He did not actively take any steps to make further grievance against the responsibility so cast on him that he had not refiled the Petition till 19‑9‑1987 when he received the papers allegedly by post from an unidentified person. The inattention of the Advocate‑on‑Record to an urgent matter, pending since 3rd of March, 1986 to 8th of July, 1986 remains unexplained. Similarly, his inattention from 8‑7‑1986 to 5‑7‑1987 when he filed another urgent application by reference to the C.P.LA. and the objection was raised thereon, has not been explained by him. Similar is his conduct in not pursuing the matter of the complainant further after 5‑7‑1987 to 19‑9‑1987. In Exh. R/2, which is an application submitted by him on 20‑9‑1987 before the Supreme Court for urgent relief, the learned Advocate‑on‑Record gave the following explanation for the inordinate delay that had taken place:‑‑
"That this petition was filed originally on 1‑3‑1986 within time but was returned by the Office and after return it became untraceable and the same has now been received by me at my residential address on 19‑9 1987. It appears that this Petition was misplaced some where. (The original envelop is attached herewith).
The delay thus occurred in re‑submission, if any, may kindly be condoned, as the same was due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner."
The is inconsistent with the plea that he has taken before us. What clearly appears to us is that the papers were not handled with care by him. He misplaced them and was negligent in pursuing the urgent application in the Supreme Court and in protecting the interest of the client for whom he was acting as an Advocate‑on‑Record in the case. He is guilty of gross professional misconduct by which a valuable right of the complainant in seeking further relief was frustrated.
9. The respondent, Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, objected to the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Bar Council on the ground that under Rule 30 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court alone has the power, on a complaint of any person, to take disciplinary action including suspension and removal from practice of the Court, against him. This objection appears to be misconceived because that is a power of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice, relatable to advocates practising before it and to the extent they have a right to practice there. The Pakistan Bar Council's jurisdiction extends to their practice in other Courts as well. Even Rule 30 of Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, relied upon by the respondent, envisages a reference to the Pakistan Bar Council and taking of the appropriate action by it. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Bar Council is not affected by the power enshrined in the said Rule 30 of Order IV. The two can and do co‑exist.
10. Keeping in view the nature of the gross misconduct committed by the respondent Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, whereby a valuable right of his client was lost, he is suspended from practice for a period of one and a half years from the date of receipt of this Order and a cost of Rs. 10,000 is imposed on him which shall be paid to the complainant. During this period of one and a half years, he shall be debarred from practising as an Advocate in any Court or before any authority or person in Pakistan under section 43(6) and 43(7) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. Necessary effect shall be given to the punishment by making entries thereof in the rolls of Advocates against the name of the respondent, and by informing all concerned.
M.B.A./5/T.P.B.C Order accordingly.