P L D 2006 Lahore 193 (PLP)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

The circumstances out of which this criminal original petition has arisen, have been noted in my order dated 15-12-2005 passed in C.R. No.1739 of 1984; for reference the same is reproduced as under: "This is a very old case in which litigation between the parties commenced as far back as 11-6-1975. In the connected case (Civil Revision No.1950 of 1984) which is between the same parties, the litigation started even earlier. The present revision petition and the connected petition were filed more than 21 years ago to challenge the concurrent decrees passed by the learned Courts below in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Interim relief was allowed to the petitioners on 31-1071984 by suspending the operation of the impugned decrees.

2. The very fact that these petitions have remained pending for so long is a cause of concern. It is disconcerting that this has happened despite the order dated 1-6-1986 directing that the hearing of the case be accelerated "as far as may be possible" because only a short point was involved. I have noted certain aspects of the case highlighted in the order sheet and have also taken notice of the contumacious and dilatory conduct of counsel for the petitioners. The interim orders dated 24-5-1986 and 1-6-1986 show that a copy of the written statement had not been filed with the petition although this was a requirement of the law. On 24-5-1986, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent was noted that the case set up by the petitioners in this petition was materially different from the defence raised in their written statement. On 1-6-1986 the petitioners were required to file a certified copy of the written statement within a fortnight. I note that to date this order has not been complied with.

3. After 1-6-1986 I find no interlocutory order on file for a period of almost 14 years until 25-2-2000. On that date an application (C.M.1-C/99) filed by the L.Rs. of the sole respondent, praying that they be brought on record, was allowed by my learned brother Syed Jamshed Ali, J. The aforesaid respondent had died in 1987. The next order dated 6-7-2000 shows that one of the L.Rs. of the original respondent had also died. It is now the third unfortunate generation on the respondents' side which is embroiled in this litigation.

4. After 6-7-2000 the case was listed for hearing on 20-9-2000 when the following order was passed:-- `The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that I should not hear his cases. I am afraid this request cannot be granted by me. The learned counsel wants to move the Hon'ble Chief Justice in this regard. He may do so.' The office noting shows that counsel for the petitioner did not move any application pursuant to the above order and the case was, therefore, directed by Honourable the Chief Justice to be fixed before the same learned Bench. The case could not be proceeded with on the succeeding six dates of hearing for various reasons recorded by the Court.

5. On 18-10-2005 the case came up before me. A request for adjournment was made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that he was busy before the Rawalpindi Bench. The case was adjourned to the following day but learned counsel for the petitioners was stated to be busy before the Honourable Supreme Court and the matter was, therefore, adjourned to 24-11-2005. Keeping in mind that the case was very old, it was noted that this was a final adjournment.

6. On 24-11-2005 the respondents were proceeded against ex parte as none had appeared on their behalf. Counsel for the petitioners was asked to argue the case, but he was not in a position to do so. In the circumstances, the following order was passed:-- '

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unprepared and is not able to render any assistance to the Court. In order not to cause prejudice to the petitioners on account of lack of preparation by their counsel I am adjourning this case to 12-12-2005 subject to payment of Rs.1,000 as costs.' On 12-12-2005 learned counsel for the petitioner once again was unable to assist the Court. He was unable even to read the copy of a relevant sale-deed on the record of the connected case which had been taken up first. He, therefore, sought time to prepare a better copy of the same. Learned counsel also wanted to refer to a sale-deed, which is part of the record in this revision petition, while trying to argue the connected case. Upon being asked, counsel acknowledged that the two cases were based on separate causes of action and had never been consolidated. Evidence in both cases had also been separately adduced and the ,matters were decided through separate judgments, counsel, therefore, had to be taught the most rudimentary legal rule that the record of the other case was not relevant for the present petition. He then stated that he would apply for placing the aforesaid sale deed on the record of this petition.

7. Considering that the adjudication of the case was already long delayed and the late respondent's L.Rs. were still deprived of the benefits of the concurrent decrees passed in their favour more than two decades earlier, I adjourned the case to today although learned counsel for the petitioners insisted on a longer adjournment. There is justification for inferring from the foregoing circumstances that counsel for the petitioners is interested in prolonging this matter to avail the benefits of interim relief, thereby frustrating the process of law.

8. Today instead of doing the two things for which he had sought an adjournment, counsel for the petitioners has stated that on account of the treatment meted to him by the Court and the observations made in the order of the dated 24-11-2005, he did not expect justice in this case. At this point I also need to note that counsel for the petitioners has addressed a letter dated 9-12-2005 to the Honourable Chief Justice in which contemptuous language has been used against me in respect of the manner in which I have conducted the case and dealt with counsel since the time this matter has come on my list. A copy of this letter has been sent to me as well and has been placed on file.

9. The conduct of counsel noted above shows that he has been guilty of committing contempt of Court and has also violated the Code of Conduct prescribed for Advocates. In the circumstances, notice shall issue to counsel, Mr. Muhammad Akbar Cheema, Advocate, for 19-1-2006 to show-cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act should not be initiated against him. The office shall prepare a separate file for this purpose which shall be placed before me on 19-1-2006.

10. The case of Mr. Muhammad Akbar Cheema, Advocate, is also referred to the Punjab Bar Council for appropriate disciplinary action.

11. As far the case in hand, I am of the opinion that on account of the conduct of counsel noted above, any further continuance of the interim relief would work injustice on the respondents. The interim relief allowed to the petitioners is, therefore, recalled. However, in view of the contempt proceedings initiated by me against counsel for the petitioners, it may be appropriate if this revision petition and the connected petition are heard by another learned Bench. The case file be placed before Honourable the Chief Justice for such orders as he may deem fit."

2. Today the contemner has submitted an apology to the Court. I have considered the contents of the same with due care and find that the apology can, at best, be taken in mitigation of the sentence.

3. The respondent/contemner is an Advocate and not an ignorant, layman or rustic. The contempt, committed by him, both in the letter addressed to Honourable the Chief Justice and in Court, as noted in the order reproduced above, was calculated, persistent and deliberate. The judicial system has to be protected against such contempt. There will be a total breakdown in the administration of justice if, in appropriate cases such as the present one, suitable punishment is not handed down to a contemner simply because he has tendered an apology.

4. In view of the contempt committed by him, I was minded to pass the maximum sentence against him provided by law. However, in the circumstances noted above, I, sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5,

000. If the fine is not paid, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He has been placed under arrest and will be lodged in Central Jail, Lahore, to undergo the sentence. M.B.A./S-16/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.