2002 PLP 1598 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD ALAM (MEMBER).‑‑‑On 23‑10‑1999 Haji Rozi Gul complainant filed a complaint in the N.‑W.F.P.' Bar Council Peshawar alleging there in that the complainant paid Rs. fifty thousand to the respondent Advocate as Professional fee for conducting his cases, in spite of the payment of Professional fee the respondent failed to conduct the cases of the complainant and on demand the respondent is neither ready to refund the fee nor willing to conduct the cases, so it was prayed that the respondent be directed to reimburse the said fee.

2. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council initiated the proceedings against the respondent and the respondent submitted the written statement denying the allegations contained in the complaint. It was, however, averred that the complainant had come twice or thrice to the office of the respondent, but due to the fact that no fee was settled, and thus, the complainant took away the briefs of the cases. it was admitted that because of initial settlement the respondent attended the Court twice or thrice, but when ‑ told regarding, the position of his cases and also the total fee for professional duties, the complainant opted not to engage the respondent as counsel. It was denied that the amount of Rs.50,000 was ever paid to the respondent. The learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee of the N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar, after recording of the evidence of the parties as they wished to adduce, and after hearing the parties and considering the data available on the record dismissed the complaint vide impugned order, dated Nil. Rozi Gul complainant being aggrieved from the order of the Disciplinary Committee of N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council has filed the present appeal.

3. We have heard the parties as well as the Deputy Advocate- General for the Government of N.‑W.F.P. and have perused the record minutely with their assistance.

4. Perusal of the record would show that before the Disciplinary Committee Rozi Gul complainant appeared as P.W.1 who supported the contents of the complaint and in cross‑examination admitted that the cases were pending at Peshawar and the respondent is practising at District Headquarter, Nowshera. It was also admitted that previously the complainant had engaged other counsel Mr. Syed Rehman, Asif Shah and Zahir Shah, Advocates, but due to lack of confidence in them, the complainant engaged the respondent for conducting his cases. Muhammad Siddique son of the complainant appeared as P.W.2 who deposed that he had gone, on so many occasions to the respondent that the complainant had engaged the respondent for the conduct of cases. The respondent appeared as witness and recorded his statement. He admitted his engagement as counsel for the complainant. The respondent further deposed that on inspection of the file he came to know that the cases of the complainant was at a very initial stage and he was insisting on quick disposal which was possible only after following the procedure and this teas always explained to the complainant. On this the complainant got annoyed and discarded the services of the respondent. Furthermore when the complainant was asked for settlement of final fee, the' complainant took the case files from the office of the respondent in his absence, The respondent, however, admitted the tentative payment of Rs,4,000 by the complainant.

5. Regarding the payment of Rs,50,000 as fee P.W.2 has admitted that the complainant had shown him a receipt, but the same has neither been placed on record nor the complainant has uttered a single word in his statement before the lower forum.

6. On the record there is no evidence worth convincing that the respondent was paid Rs.50,000 by the complainant. However, the respondent has admitted the receipt of Rs.4,000 as tentative payment and legally as well morally he was duty bound to have refunded, at least this amount to the respondent; as he after the case files were taken from him, has not conducted the cases of the complainant.

7. Before us the appellant refused to receive the abovementioned Rs.4,000 and stressed that as the respondent has spoiled his cases, so strict legal action should be taken against him. But on the record appellant has not proved that the respondent has ever attempted to spoil his cases.

8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we find no force in the present appeal, which is hereby dismissed, with no orders as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./505/P Appeal dismissed.