1996 PLP 69 (PLC)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----Ss.3 & 7---Attempt to malign Court by Advocate---Counsel for appellant in memo. of appeal filed against judgment of Court below had unjustifiably attempted to malign Court below ---Averments in memo. of appeal had apparently attempted to malign Court below---Advocate being an officer of Court was duty bound to use appropriate words while drafting pleadings and he must avoid disparaging remarks and improper language likely to affect the authority and supremacy of law---Advocate appearing on behalf of party before Court of law must maintain professional ethics and abstain from using impolite language or adopting distasteful conduct---Making of irrelevant and scandalous attack in pleadings filed in Court was a direct contempt and could be dealt with immediately/summarily---Proceedings in case of direct contempt, were not to take the form of trial---Three show-cause notices were served orally as contempt was in view of the Court and procedure was provided in S.7(4) of Contempt of Court Act, 1976 to meet such situation---Procedure adopted by Court, thus was in accord with law and not invalid as asserted on part of Advocate---Circumstances called for severe action against Advocate concerned, but Court considering his young age and fresh entry in profession deemed it expedient merely to warn him to be careful in future and abstain from improper expression in pleadings or arguments.
• SA.M. Qadri and Azam Jan Zarkoon for Appellants
• . Yakoob Khan, A.-G. for Respondent No. 1.
• Tariq Mehmood for Respondent No. 2.
• Raja Rab Nawaz, Dy. A.-G. for Respondent No. 3.
• Date of hearing: 29th June, 1995.
• ‑‑‑‑Ss.3 & 7‑‑‑Attempt to malign Court by Advocate‑‑‑Counsel for appellant in memo. of appeal filed against judgment of Court below had unjustifiably attempted to malign Court below ‑‑‑Averments in memo. of appeal had apparently attempted to malign Court below‑‑‑Advocate being an officer of Court was duty bound to use appropriate words while drafting pleadings and he must avoid disparaging remarks and improper language likely to affect the authority and supremacy of law‑‑‑Advocate appearing on behalf of party before Court of law must maintain professional ethics and abstain from using impolite language or adopting distasteful conduct‑‑‑Making of irrelevant and scandalous attack in pleadings filed in Court was a direct contempt and could be dealt with immediately/summarily‑‑‑Proceedings in case of direct contempt, were not to take the form of trial‑‑‑Three show‑cause notices were served orally as contempt was in view of the Court and procedure was provided in S.7(4) of Contempt of Court Act, 1976 to meet such situation‑‑‑Procedure adopted by Court, thus was in accord with law and not invalid as asserted on part of Advocate‑‑‑Circumstances called for severe action against Advocate concerned, but Court considering his young age and fresh entry in profession deemed it expedient merely to warn him to be careful in future and abstain from improper expression in pleadings or arguments.
• . Yakoob Khan, A.‑G. for Respondent No. 1.
• Raja Rab Nawaz, Dy. A.‑G. for Respondent No. 3.
• Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate for respondent No.2 vehemently opposing the appeal argued that appellants were provided full and fair opportunity of leading evidence despite unnecessary dialatory tactics adopted on their behalf. Learned counsel contended that statement of attorney has been duly recorded, therefore, request for examining appellants had no legal sanctity. Assertion of paras. 13 and 14 of the memo. of appeal were specifically challenged as mala fide. Learned counsel stressed that it was obligatory for appellants to justify that claim had been instituted before the competent forum within the prescribed period of limitation. The duty is cast upon Court to examine question of limitation irrespective whether objection in this behalf is raised by either party. To supplement his submissions he placed reliance on (a) PLD 1985 SC 153, (b) 1991 SCMR 864, and (c)1992 SCMR 1199.
• (iii) Learned Advocate‑General contended that Ground‑G and averments in the memo. of appeal are highly unwarranted and require severe action against the counsel because unjustifiably attempt has been made to maligne the trial Court. He canvassed that ethics and rules of conduct demand that Advocates should maintain decorum, upholding majesty of Law and Courts. According to him wilful attempts have been made by Advocate, for appellants while drafting the appeal, giving personal affidavit and making wild allegation, complete, disregarding professional ethics and dignity of the Court. According to him such wild and improper assertions in the pleadings should not be lightly ignored. To supplement his submissions reliance was placed on the following decided cases:‑‑‑
• It may be seen that procedure and period for agitating grievances where right guaranteed to employees has been violated is specified and regulated by section 25‑A, I.R.O. It is obligatory for the aggrieved person to satisfy the forum of competent jurisdiction that his claim does not suffer from any legal defect. There is absolutely no plausible explanation for inordinate delay in approaching Labour Court for redress of grievances culminating in present appeal. The above reported judgments relied upon by Mr. Tariq Mehmood for respondent No.2 clearly propound that irrespective of objection from either side, Court/forum trying a dispute is bound to examine whether or not claim instituted before it falls within prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, mere non‑framing of issue when parties are aware about requirements of law and nature of grievance cannot be deemed fatal. It was undisputed an obligation upon aggrieved party to mention cogent reason for satisfying the Court about delay in approaching forum of competent jurisdiction for redress of his grievance. Neither any application for condonation of delay was submitted before the trial Court nor any case has been made out for exercising discretion in favour, of appellants for condoning unexplained inordinate delay. Judgments relied upon by Mr. SA.M. Quadri, Advocate in the peculiar circumstances are of, no help to appellants.
• Now examining the last limb of arguments advanced by learned Advocate‑General and endorsed by other counsel appeared in the matter, it may be seen that bare reading of paras. 13 and 14 coupled with grounds (C) and (G) of memo. of appeal, is sufficiently offensive. There is apparent attempt to malign the trial Court. An Advocate, being an officer of the Court is duty bound to use selective words, while drafting pleadings. He must avoid disparaging remarks and improper language likely to affect glory and supremacy of law. The Advocate appearing on behalf of party before Court of law must maintain professional ethics and abstain from using impolite language or adopting distasteful conduct. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding ease Mst. Dilshad Sultana v. Noor Muhammad and others (PLD 1993 Quetta 1) made following observation:‑‑‑
• "Mr. Raja Rab Nawaz levelled serious allegation in this behalf against the Presiding Officer but he could not substantiate the same. We are minded to initiate proper action against petitioner but decided to exercise restraint because if any action is initiated against her she would land yet into another difficulty, however, we are constrained to make observations that while giving instructions to the Advocates litigants should be very careful before casting any type of aspersion on the authority‑of Presiding Officer of the Court and should refrain from imputing baseless and ill‑founded allegation because if a serious view is taken by the Courts it may entail severe consequences. It is also important to mention here that worthy Advocates who being the officers of the Court are also equally responsible to ensure that Presiding Officers are not maligned and involved unnecessarily."
• 17. We may mention here that before coming to the conclusion we had also heard the learned Additional Advocate‑General who unequivocally and without any reservation submitted that the respondent has committed contempt of Court of the type which has no parallel in the history of this Court and that the contents of the petition as well as his utterances in the proceedings are not only vexatious but also scandalous. He submitted that the contemner neither deserves any leniency nor is there any mitigating circumstance and should, therefore, be punished suitably."
• Examining the pleadings in the light of above laid dictum, I feel that conduct of Mr. Azam Jan Zarkoon, Advocate who gave personal affidavit concerning vague, wild and vexacious assertions is not above board, and lacks professional this tending to undermine the prestige of Court.
• Learned Advocate‑General has specifically drawn attention to the contents and grounds of appeal which smacks contemptuous averments Apparently circumstances called for action which has severe consequences, but considering that above‑named Advocate is young man and new entrant in the profession, having long way to go in the career, it would be expedient merely to warn him for being careful in future and abstain from improper expression in the pleadings, or arguments.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree