P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

H. T. RAYMOND, J.‑‑These proceedings under section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Act No. XVIII of 1879) against Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik Pleader of Tando Allahyar commenced with a complaint alleging professional misconduct on the part of this pleader which was addressed to the Senior Judge of this Bench on 19‑12‑1961 by one Mr. Abdul Aziz Chowdhury. The papers were placed before a Divisional Bench of this High Court under section 10 of the Bar Councils Act, 1926, under the mistaken belief that Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik was an advocate but the error was soon discovered and it was ordered that in accordance with paragraph 4 of Chapter VI‑G of the High Court Rules and Orders Volume V an enquiry under section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act be held into the allegations made against the Pleader concerned by the District Judge, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the then District Judge, 13yderabad, Mr. Hyderabad. Nana Ghulamally as he then was, held the necessary enquiry in the course of which he examined the complainant Abdul Aziz Chowdhury and the evidence led by him as well as the pleader Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik. At the conclusion of this enquiry the District Judge, Hyderabad, submitted his report to this High Court and this matter then came up before a Full Bench of three judges in February 1963, with Mr. A. K. Brohi appearing on behalf of Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik Pleader, the complainant in person and the A. A: G. on behalf of the State. It, was then pointed out by Mr. Brohi that in terms of rule 13, Chapter VI‑G of Volume V of the Rule and Orders of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, "charges" were to be tried and decided by this Full Bench and that there was nothing in the language of the rule to show that they had to be framed by following any particular procedure or by any particular officer. We then examined these rules and as provided therein we requested the A.A.‑G. to frame the necessary charges and to submit the same for our approval. This was done and a sitting of the present Full Bench as constituted on 17‑2‑1964, a copy of these charges as framed by the A.A.‑G. was directed to be supplied to the complainant, the Pleader Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik having already been supplied with such a copy. It was then agreed by Mr. Brohi appearing on be of the Pleader and the A.A.‑G. and the complainant that affidavits is were to be sworn by the complainant and the Pleader contain g the evidence on which they wished to rely with either side supplying copies to the other well in advance before the next hearing. These affidavits together with their Annexures were duly exchanged between the two parties and this matter has now fully been argued before us on the strength of these affidavits and the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer and District Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Now, the charges that were drawn up by the A.A.‑G. against the pleader Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik may be summarized as under (a) That in the month of December 1959, he was engaged by the complainant Mr. Abdul Aziz Chowdhury to file a Civil Suit against one Usman Ode and Ranjho for which purpose he received from the complainant his professional fees together with the costs and the relevant documents concerned. He did not file this suit and on 14‑2‑1960, he apologized to the complainant in writing returning to him his documents and his money. (b) In April 1961, the complainant again engaged him for filing two suits one for the recovery of Rs. 42,000 against Ali Muhammad Merchant of Tando Allahyar and the other for the recovery of Rs. 150 from Mr. Zaidi a petition writer of Tando Allahyar. The original documents relating to these two suits were handed over by the complainant to the Pleader together with a sum of Rs. 2,500 by cheque and Rs. 50 in cash towards fees and expenses. (c) The Pleader thereafter gave false dates of hearing to the complainant for each of these suits neither of which had actually been filed by him and also addressed his letter of 27‑10‑1961, to the complainant in this connection. (d) The complainant suspecting that the suits had not been filed attended the office of the Pleader on 8‑11‑1961, demanding the return of his documents and his money but he was threat ened with dire consequences and turned away. (e) After many entreaties the Pleader returned the original documents relating to the suit against Mr. Zaidi only but not in the other suit. (f) On 25‑11‑1961, at the intervention of Major Abdul Sattar Khan the Pleader returned to the complainant the original documents relating to the suit against Mr. Ali Muhammad for Rs. 42,000 but not the money in respect of which he executed an I. O. U. acknowledging that he owed the sum of Rs. 2,550 to the complainant. (g) That in spite of being enrolled as a Pleader Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik both on his letter heads, and sign board calls himself an advocate. The charge concludes that by these acts the Pleader has rendered himself liable to be punished for misconduct under section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.

3. The above charges were drawn up by the A.A.‑G relying in the main upon the complaint preferred by the complainant against the Pleader to the Senior Judge of this High Court Bench and probably also upon the evidence led at the enquiry conducted by the District Judge, Hyderabad. It would be useful to set out here in juxta position the reply submitted by the Pleader to this Court in answer to the complainant's complaint. The Pleader admitted that in December 1959, he had been engaged by the complainant in three civil suits to be filed against Haji Muhammad, Agedino and others and one Oad. The suit against Agedino and others was filed and decreed. An appeal by the defendants was dismissed by the First Assistant Judge, Hyderabad. The other two suits, however, were not filed as the complainant being an experienced litigant and aware of the drudgery of civil litigation had requested the Pleader to convert these two suits into criminal complaints so as to achieve quick results. In February 1960, the complainant on returning from his lands met the Pleader and on learning from him that the complaints had not been filed became angry and the Pleader in order to placate him and to give him "vain satisfaction" wrote the letter of apology of 14‑2‑1960. The pleader adds that he received no payment whatsoever for these two suits either towards fees or towards costs and that he returned the papers in both these cases to the complainant. The Pleader further admits being entrusted with two more civil suits by the complainant and with regard to the suit for Rs. 42,000 he concedes that he demanded Rs. 2,050 as costs as the complainant took him unawares when engaging him and the only book available to him at that time for ascertain ing the correct Court‑fee was a desk diary there by enabling him to make at best a rough estimate. The Pleader further adds that the complainant was not keen on filing these two suits as the defendant in the suit for Rs. 42,000 was on the verge of bank ruptcy and Mr. Zaidi the defendant in the second suit for Rs. 150 was also in a bad way financially and, therefore, unable to satisfy a decree if obtained against him. The Pleader denies that he ever gave the complainant to believe that these two suits were filed and asserts that his letter of 27‑10‑1961, relates to the appeal filed by Agedino in the Court of the First Assistant Judge, Hyderabad, who was then under orders of transfer. Finally, the Pleader denies that he returned the complainant's paper to Major Abdul Sattar and asserts that he handed them over to the complainant himself on 25‑11‑1961, when he approached him for their return on the ground, that he had abandoned the idea of filing these two suits. The petitioner adds that in good faith he executed the I. O. U. of that date in favour of the complainant telling him to come and collect his money whenever he so desired. But, the complainant fell in with his enemies Major Abdul Sattar, Chowdhury Abdul Haleem and his father Chowdhury Abdul Matin and at their instigation has brought this false complaint against him.

4. It is also necessary to set out here briefly‑the evidence examined by the Enquiry Officer and District Judge, Hyderabad, as led before him by the complainant and the Pleader. The complainant in his deposition has set forth in greater detail his allegations against the Pleader as contained in his original com plaint to the Senior Judge of 19‑12‑1961. It is of interest to note that when speaking of the civil suits to be filed by the Pleader, he, the complainant, in his examination‑in‑chief makes no mention at all of his desire to have any of these suits converted into criminal complaints. It is only in his cross‑examination that he is compelled to admit that the complaint drawn up against Usman Oad bears his signature and was so prepared by the Pleader at his instance. But for this lapse, the complainant repeats the allegations contained in his complaint and set out above in the charges as drawn by the A.A.‑G. The complainant explains that in April 1961, when he engaged the services of the Pleader to file the two suits for Rs. 42,000 and Rs. 150 respectively the Pleader Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik was to receive Rs. 500 as his fees for both these suits and Rs. 2,055 towards the stamps and Court‑fees. In this connection, he further states that in the months of May, June and July 1961, the Pleader informed him from time to time that the summons on the defendants had not been served and that the suit for Rs. 42,000 had been transferred to the District Court and he would inform him of the date of hearing there. He gave him several dates one of which was 28‑10‑1961 and on the previous day 27‑10‑1961 he wrote informing him that‑ "the rumour regarding the transfer is confirmed and as such it is no good to go there tomorrow. I shall intimate to you soon regarding the next date." The complainant goes on to say how on 25‑11‑1961, accompanied by one Major Abdul Sattar of Tando Allahyar he went to the Pleader's office and got his papers back and an I. O. U. relating to the return of his money. The complainant is definite that he had no intimation of any appeal filed by Agedino because no sum mons relating thereto were over served upon him. Being ignorant of this appeal he had not asked the Pleader to attend to it. This Major Abdul Sattar has also been examined by the complainant and he confirms that he visited the Pleader's office for getting back the documents relating to the suit for Rs. 42,000 and while there the complainant turned up to whom Abdul Wahab returned his papers and documents. In cross‑examination this witness has admitted that there have been disputes between the families of Abdul Haleem and Abdul Matin on the one hand and Pleader Abdul Wahab on the other and that there were theft cases filed by him in which Pleader Abdul Wahab appeared on behalf of the accused.

5. Mr. Abdul Wahab Pleader is the only witness examined on his side and his evidence before the Enquiry Officer‑cum- District Judge is a repetition of his written statement as submitted to this High Court in answer to the complaint filed by the com plainant against him. He avers that he did not file a civil suit against Usman Oad because he had been asked to convert it into a criminal complaint. But, having done so the complainant did not turn up to file this complaint. With regard to the other two suits for Rs. 42,000 and Rs. 150 he admits having received the papers and documents in respect of these two suits but adds that he did not draft the plaint because the complainant after handing over the papers and documents to him went away to his lands and did not come back for four to five months. He denies having told the complainant that he had filed these suits and with regard to his letter Exh. C of 27‑10‑1961, he says that this letter relates to the appeal filed by Agedino against the decision of the lower Court decreeing this suit against him. This appeal was then pending before the First Additional District Judge, Mr. Hamzo Khan, and inasmuch as this Pleader's Vakalatnama was still in the original suit he was interested in this appeal. He further states that the complainant took away the papers and documents relating to these suits from him on the plea of consulting an advocate in the Punjab who is related to him. With regard to the allegation that although he was a Pleader he was posing as an advocate he stated that one Chowdhury Abdul Haleem had filed an application against him before the District Judge accusing him of professional misconduct in this regard and that although it is true that for some time he used the word "advocate" both on his letter heads as well as on his sign board, yet this was due to inadvertence and an unintentional lapse on his part.

6. Mr. A. K. Brohi the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Pleader Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan Malik submitted that the whole case against his client falls as it were into three broad chapters. The first of these chapters being with the allega tions of misconduct against him in certain professional engage ments undertaken by him in December 1959 and ends with the written apology tendered by him to the complainant on 14‑2‑1960. The second chapter concerns his conduct in regard to the two suits for Rs. 42,000 and Rs. 150 entrusted to him. The third chapter deals with the allegation that he falsely represented himself to be an advocate.

7. Dealing with the first of these three chapters, Mr. Brohi pointed out that in December 1959, the complainant had engaged his client in three suits and not in one suit as wrongly mentioned by him in his original complaint. He invited our attention to the fact that the complainant both in his written complaint as well as in his examination‑in‑chief before the Enquiry Officer and District Judge refrained from mentioning that he had asked his client to convert these two suits into criminal complaints. However, he was exposed in his cross‑examination when the complaint against Muhammad Usman Oad under section 420 P. P. C. was shown ;to him and he was forced to admit his signature thereon. From this, Mr. Brohi argues, that the complainant is not a reliable person whose word can be accepted. Finally, with regard to the allegations concerning this an first chapter Mr. Brohi submitted that it all ended in a com promise with the Pleader giving a written apology to the complainant on 14‑2‑1960, which was accepted by the complainant.

8. In so far as Mr. Brohi's contentions concerning this first chapter are concerned, we find it difficult to hold that the allegations against the Pleader confined to this chapter are completely washed away by his letter of apology of 14‑2‑1960. Although, as contended for by Mr. Brohi, the Criminal Law contemplates compoundable offences, yet, as conceded by counsel, this is not an inquiry into an offence. We, therefore, cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the Pleader in this case before us is not a criminal accused of an offence but a member of an honourable profession which demands a high standard of ethics and of moral conduct. It will amount to taking a degenerated view of the profession if the conduct of a member of the profession is judged by the standards of the conduct of a criminal. We have to keep in our view the necessity of maintaining the trustworthiness of the profession for purposes of the judiciary and the litigant public. Consequently, the concept of compoundable offences in which the guilt is effaced by a compromise cannot be extended to embrace cases of professional misconduct. Besides, as pointed out by the learned A. A.‑G., this letter of apology is in the nature of a frank confession of guilt and the fact that the complainant condoned and excused this lapse on the part of the Pleader so much so that within another four months he engaged him again in two more civil suits cannot, so far as we are concerned does not completely obliterate those acts of improper conduct on the part of the Pleader between December 1959, and February 1960. It also appears to us, and we may mention this here in passing, that the frankly written apology given by the Pleader in February 1960, could by no means have been sincere because in his reply submitted to this High Court on 22‑1‑1962, commenting parawise on the complainant's original complaint to the Senior Judge, the Pleader, Mr. Wahab, justifies his conduct in not filing the two suits in December 1959, adding that he wrote the letter of 14‑2‑1960 "for the purpose of giving the complainant a vain satisfaction. Hence, we find ourselves unable to agree with Mr. Brohi that the written apology of his client of 14‑2‑1960 serves to wash out any stigma that may attach to him for his acts professional misconduct between December 1959, and February 1960, because, in our view, that conduct and the explanation now given of the apology aggravate his subsequent conduct.

9. Dealing with the second chapter Mr. Brohi first submitted that the engagement of his client by the complainant for the next two civil suits was in April 1961 and not in April 1960. The complainant both in his written complaint as well as in his deposition before the Enquiry Officer and District Judge puts the date as April 1961; but the letter Exh. B addressed by the pleader to the complainant concerning this engagement and the amount of Court‑fee necessary is dated 15‑4‑1960 and the Pleader himself has never questioned it. It is clear to us that Mr. Brohi is anxious to show that this second engagement by the com plainant of the Pleader, Mr. Wahab, occurred in April 1961, and not in April 1960, in order to minimise the act of the Pleader in demanding from the complainant an enhanced sum of money by way of costs and in sticking to it for so long before discovering his mistake and offering to return the excess amount. But, we cannot lightly conceive of the date of a written document which has throughout been taken by the writer as 15‑4‑1960, being altered, for using it in an argument, to 15‑4‑1961. However this may be, the learned A. A.‑G. contended that, for the purposes of this case, it was qualitatively immaterial whether the second engagement occurred in April 1960, or in April 1961, and we are inclined to agree with him on this point. The only difference that this date can make in this case is that when assessing the evidence available on the record against the Pleader it would mean that he had retained the complainant's money with him for a long or a shorter period and that the time during which the demand for excessive money was adhered to was long or comparatively short.

10. Mr. Brohi next repelled the allegation that his client had misrepresented to the complainant that he had complied with his second engagement, had filed the suit for Rs. 42,000 and given false dates of hearings therein to the complainant ; and contended that the letter Exh. C dated 27‑10‑1961 did not concern this suit but rather the appeal filed by Agedino in a suit which was decreed against him. In support of this con tention Mr. Brohi invited our attention to the summons in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1961 (Agedino v. Ch. Abdul Aziz) by which the date of hearing in the Court of the District Judge, Hyderabad was fixed on 27‑9‑1961 and to the bailiff's endorsement thereon showing that, after having searched for the respondent Ch. Abdul Aziz from 19‑9‑1961 to 22‑9‑1961, he had on 23‑9‑1961, pasted this summons on the outer door of the house of complainant, Ch. Abdul Aziz in Tando Allahyar. It is the case for the Pleader that he had been requested by complainant Aziz to watch this appeal and that inasmuch as he had come to learn that Mr. Hamzo Khan Qureshi then A. D. J. was under orders of transfer and, therefore, there was no likelihood of this appeal proceeding before him, he addressed his letter of 27‑10‑1961 to Ch. Abdul Aziz informing him that the rumour regarding the transfer was correct and that there was no point, therefore, in his going from Tando Allahyar to Hyderabad, the next day, that is, 28‑10‑1961. Mr. Brohi contended that if complainant Ch. Abdul Aziz could so twist this letter Exh. C as to make it refer to his suit for Rs. 42,000 there is no knowing how far such a dangerous man could go.

11. We have closely examined this argument of Mr. Brohi and we find that the case diary concerning Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1961, shows no date of hearing on 28‑10‑1961. This diary shows that this appeal was set down for hearing on 27‑9‑1961, for which date it reads "Appellant and his Advocate present. Notice not yet returned. Await till‑ 10/10. (Sd.) Hamzo Khan M. Qureshi, Judge," The next two dates of hearing shows in this diary are 10/10, on which the diary reads: "Appellant and his advocate present. Notice returned unserved. Issue fresh costs for hearing on 31/10" and 31/10 on which the diary reads "Advocate for appellant present. Costs of notice not deposited. Appeal dismissed for non‑payment of costs." It would be seen from this diary that this appeal was at no time set down for hearing on 28‑10‑1961 and, therefore, the letter Exh: C dated 27‑10‑1961 can have no relation at all to this appeal. If this letter, then, does not relate to this appeal of Agedino the complainant's contention that it relates to the suit to be filed by the Pleader for which he had paid him the sum of Rs. 2,550 gains support and strength. In this view then it is the Pleader and not the complainant who has given a twist to this letter and who has made it appear to refer to Agedino's appeal and not to the suit for Rs. 42,

000. It is interesting to observe that on the record before us in this matter there is a copy of the decree of this suit as later filed by the complainant through some other Advocate and this copy of the decree dated 20‑5‑1963, shows that this suit was decreed by the First Additional District Judge, Hyderabad. It will thus appear from this decree that this suit for Rs. 42,000 was on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, and not on the file of the First Class Sub‑Judge. The First Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, in the second half of 1961 was Mr. Hamzo Khan Qureshi, who in October of that year was under orders of transfer and hence it is very probable that the Pleader represented to the complainant that he had filed this suit which was fixed for hearing in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, who was then, admittedly, under orders of transfer to Karachi and did, in fact, come to Karachi soon thereafter.

12. Mr. Brohi's next contention was that his client is a victim of his enemies Major Abdul Sattar and Ch. Abdul Haleem and his father Abdul Mateen. For this, Mr. Brohi relied upon two criminal cases filed by Major Abdul Sattar in which Pleader Wahab appeared for the accused and both of which ended in a discharge in or about the year 1960. There was a third case filed by Ch. Abdul Mateen against Pleader Wahab and others which also ended in a discharge on 6‑1‑1953, and the fourth case was a complaint made by Ch. Abdul Haleem before the District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, charging Pleader Abdul Wahab with professional misconduct which also ended in the discharge of this Pleader on 25‑11‑1961. Mr. Brohi submitted that this date 25‑11‑1961, has a three fold import ance in that on that day Ch. Abdul Haleem's application against his client was dismissed by the District Judge, Hyderabad, secondly on that day complainant admits that he and Major Abdul Sattar went to the Pleader and got back his papers as well as the I. O. U. and, thirdly, it is the day on which the Pleader admits returning the papers to the complainant. Finally, Mr. Brohi invited our attention to the cross‑examination of Major Abdul Sattar and to the admissions made by him therein and contended that it was fantastic to believe that of all persons the complainant would choose his client's inveterate enemy to go to him and to get back his papers from him.

13. We have, once again, given our close attention to this part of Mr. Brohi's argument and upon the enmity of which, he claims, his client is a victim. From the discharge orders produced on the record before us it may very well be that Major Abdul Sattar and his brother Abdul Shakoor are not on good terms with Pleader Abdul Wahab : though, even here, it must be noted that in the two cases filed by Sattar against Asghar and others and against Nasir Khan and others which ended in a discharge Pleader Wahab appeared for the accused and was not himself personally involved in these two cases. In the third case filed by Ch. Abdul Matin, Abdul Wahab is one of the 16 accused and Abdul Shakoor is a witness for the complainant in this case. Finally, there is the complaint made by Ch. Abdul Haleem son of Ch. Abdul Matin against Pleader Wahab under the Legal Practitioners Act before the District Judge, Hyderabad. But, the fact yet remains, that these four cases concern Pleader Abdul Wahab on the one hand and Major Abdul Sattar his brother Abdul Shakoor, Ch. Abdul Matin and his son Ch. Abdul Haleem on the other. It is not clear to us as to what connection complainant Ch. Abdul Aziz has with these enemies of Pleader Abdul Wahab so as to joint hands with them in order to file this false complaint against him. It was contended by Mr. Brohi that on 25‑11‑61, when the District Judge, Hyderabad, discharged the complaint of Ch. Abdul Haleem against his client for professional mis conduct, that same day Abdul Sattar and the complainant called on his client at Tando Allahyar, got back the documents and papers from him and also the

1. O. U. as per Exh. D dated 25‑11‑1961. But it appears to us that this identity of dates could not be more than a mere coincidence because it could not be that Pleader Abdul Wahab's enemies on sustaining a defeat at Hyderabad at the hands of the District Judge on the morning of 25‑11‑1961 sped away that same day to Tando Allahyar and made a common cause within a few hours time, in order to get back the complainant's papers from Pleader Abdul Wahab with his enemies so as to involve him in an another case. For these reasons, then, we find it extremely difficult to believe or to hold that Pleader Abdul Wahab is a victim in this matter of the enmity of the complainant in unison with the two brothers Sattar and Shakoor and the father and son Matin and Haleem. Moreover, the part played by Abdul Sattar is of little signi ficance because the delivery of the papers to the complainant on that date is not denied by the Pleader.

14. On the allegations against the Pleader that fall within the compass of this second chapter, as defined by Mr. Brohi in the charges against his client in this case, certain facts stand out broadly and the Pleader in spite of his best efforts and the eloquence of his advocate has not succeeded in satisfying us on these points. The first of these is that when engaged in April 1960, or 1961 for filing two more civil suits he demanded exorbitant sum of Rs. 2,050 towards the Court‑fee. The correct Court‑fee of Rs. 42,000 is Rs. 1,505 and yet the Pleader retained the balance without ever making any effort to arrive at the correct figure and return the excess amount to his client. Having taken this big sum from the complainant, he retained this money with himself and even months later on 25‑11‑1961, when returning the complainant his papers he gave him an I. O. U. for this money and did not even then return it to him in cash. Then there is further the fact that the Pleader for all this time made no effort to draw up the plaint and to comply with the terms of his professional engagement. Even after the complainant had complained against him to the Senior Judge of this Bench and the complaint was sent to Mr. Abdul Wahab for his parawise comments, he submitted a written statement justifying his wrong ful action and saying not a word about returning the money. Such conduct on the part of a member of an honourable profession was not calculated to bring the name of that member into good repute or to add to the fair name of the entire profession. Mr. Brohi did invite our attention to a letter addressed by M/s. S. M. Sohail Advocates, on behalf of Abdul Wahab Khan Malik to complainant Abdul Aziz dated 28‑2‑1962 offering to return the sum of Rs. 2,550 and it was mentioned at the Bar that this sum was deposited in the Court of the Enquiry Officer and District Judge, Hyderabad, in May, 1962. But, however this may be, the point remains that the Pleader has acted in a grossly improper fashion in this matter.

15. An attempt was made to criticize the conduct of the complainant by emphasizing that he desired, with reference to the cases that were entrusted to the pleader in the beginning to convert them into criminal complaints and to justify the conduct of the Pleader in not instituting the suit for the recovery of Rs. 42,000 on that ground, but the complainant has denied the allegation and there is no evidence that any complaint was drafted with respect to this claim as was done previously with reference to an earlier claim. Moreover, the fulfilment of the untoward desire of the clients to convert a civil claim into a criminal complaint depends on the legal practitioners who may encourage that desire or not. It is for the lawyers to give correct advice in a positive manner, rather than to augment a wrong hope of their clients and then to use it against them.

16. There remains the third and last chapter of the charges against the Pleader in which the allegation is that he had been passing himself off as an advocate though he was only a Pleader. In regard to this allegation it has already been mentioned above that Ch. Abdul Haleem in the year 1961 preferred a complaint against the Pleader to the District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. That Judge heard the parties and came to the conclusion that as Mr. Abdul Wahab had apologized for this unintentional lapse on his part and offered to remove the word `advocate' from his sign board, letterheads and vakalatnama and to intimate the Court within a week to that effect, that a warning to him would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, such a Warning was administered to him, and the matter was closed. Now, although it is apparent to us that a District Judge when dealing with a matter under the Legal Practitioners Act has no power to do anything more than to report facts to the High Court for such action as the High Court may deem necessary yet, in this particular matter, inasmuch as the Pleader has already been warned and has given the necessary undertaking to remove the word "advocate" from his letterheads, signboard and vakalatnanma, we do not consider it necessary to take any further action against him on this part of the charge.

17. In the result, then, we have reached the conclusion that the conduct of the Pleader in this case is grossly improper in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 13 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act. He was first engaged by the complainant in December 1959 to file three civil suits and, on his own admission, he disappointed him "on account of my indolence". By his letter to the complainant of 14‑2‑1960, he again kindled confidence in the heart of the complainant who was thus induced to engage him in two more civil suits only to be let down again. We strongly disapprove of the conduct of this Pleader throughout this matter and we view with abhorrence his attitude in apologizing objectly in February 1960, for his misconduct and yet, two years later in January 1962, when called upon to submit his parawise comments to the com plainant's written complaint, he becomes truculent and attempts to indirectly withdraw his apology by imputing it to the vanity of the complainant. On more occasions than one he has retained with himself the money entrusted to him by client for professional work at the same time abstaining from doing the work so entrusted to him. Such misconduct, m our view, clearly involves low moral conduct and can squarely b termed as "grossly improper" "in the discharge of professional duty." It cannot be considered as "an irregularity" or even as "a grave irregularity" as was the majority view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the facts of the case in Ch. Sardarali Advocate v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of West Pakistan (P L D, 1956 S C (Pak)274). It seems to us that on facts the present case is distinguishable from the facts of Sardarali's case.

18. There remains for consideration the question of what action should now be taken by us against this Pleader for his grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. We have anxiously pondered over this question and in view of the fats and circumstances of this case, the mental torture and anxiety of the Pleader over the past two or three years that this matter has been pending, we feel that the end of justice would be met if we were to suspend him from practice for a period of one year. Accordingly we order that Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan be suspended from practice for a period of one year. K. B. A. Order accordingly.