1984 PLP 1149 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAYEE-Petitioner Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1149 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 185(3)-Contempt of Court - Misconduct -- Counsel and client-Petition for leave to appeal and application for maintenance of status quo with regard to possession of petitioner till final disposal of petition-Judgment of Supreme Court which had a determinative effect on outcome of stay application not referred in application for stay nor copy of said judgment annexed to petition-After considerable effort through questioning at a much later stage, counsel of petitioner stating that there had been a round of litigation up to Supreme Court regarding ejectment order and producing previous judgment before Court-Counsel appearing for present petition and stay application had also appeared for earlier case- -Misconduct Contempt of Court-Conduct of both client and counsel was an attempt to dodge Court so as to conceal its final judgment on ques tion of ejectment particularly when in earlier case present applicant and Advocate were the petitioner and counsel, respectively-Respec tive show-cause notices issued to both client and counsel-Client (almost illiterate and desperately desirous of obtaining order for stay of his dispossession, who in circumstances instructed his counsel to try to obtain stay even if in doing so certain circumstances were concealed from Court) realising gravity of fault which was committed and throwing himself at mercy of Court-Supreme Court considering his plea for mercy forgiving him and discharged notice issued to client-Counsel also admitting his fault and tendering unqualified apology and throwing himself at mercy of Court while giving assur ance to Court to be extremely careful in future-Supreme Court took lenient view of his admittedly grave default withdrew notices and ordered that copies of present order be placed on professional records and files of counsel in High Court, Supreme Court as also Provincial Bar Council and Pakistan Bar Council-Supreme Court however, in view of unqualified apology and prayer for mercy by counsel, did not pass any order on question why counsel should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct and reported to Bar Council, as it involved question of purity of profession and standards of profes sional ethics.-Contempt of Court. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAYEE-Petitioner Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1149 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1149 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 185(3)-Contempt of Court - Misconduct -- Counsel and client-Petition for leave to appeal and application for maintenance of status quo with regard to possession of petitioner till final disposal of petition-Judgment of Supreme Court which had a determinative effect on outcome of stay application not referred in application for stay nor copy of said judgment annexed to petition-After considerable effort through questioning at a much later stage, counsel of petitioner stating that there had been a round of litigation up to Supreme Court regarding ejectment order and producing previous judgment before Court-Counsel appearing for present petition and stay application had also appeared for earlier case- -Misconduct Contempt of Court-Conduct of both client and counsel was an attempt to dodge Court so as to conceal its final judgment on ques tion of ejectment particularly when in earlier case present applicant and Advocate were the petitioner and counsel, respectively-Respec tive show-cause notices issued to both client and counsel-Client (almost illiterate and desperately desirous of obtaining order for stay of his dispossession, who in circumstances instructed his counsel to try to obtain stay even if in doing so certain circumstances were concealed from Court) realising gravity of fault which was committed and throwing himself at mercy of Court-Supreme Court considering his plea for mercy forgiving him and discharged notice issued to client-Counsel also admitting his fault and tendering unqualified apology and throwing himself at mercy of Court while giving assur ance to Court to be extremely careful in future-Supreme Court took lenient view of his admittedly grave default withdrew notices and ordered that copies of present order be placed on professional records and files of counsel in High Court, Supreme Court as also Provincial Bar Council and Pakistan Bar Council-Supreme Court however, in view of unqualified apology and prayer for mercy by counsel, did not pass any order on question why counsel should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct and reported to Bar Council, as it involved question of purity of profession and standards of profes sional ethics.-Contempt of Court. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1149 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAYEE-Petitioner Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1984.
- ‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Contempt of Court ‑ Misconduct ‑‑ Counsel and client‑Petition for leave to appeal and application for maintenance of status quo with regard to possession of petitioner till final disposal of petition‑Judgment of Supreme Court which had a determinative effect on outcome of stay application not referred in application for stay nor copy of said judgment annexed to petition‑After considerable effort through questioning at a much later stage, counsel of petitioner stating that there had been a round of litigation up to Supreme Court regarding ejectment order and producing previous judgment before Court‑Counsel appearing for present petition and stay application had also appeared for earlier case‑ ‑Misconduct Contempt of Court‑Conduct of both client and counsel was an attempt to dodge Court so as to conceal its final judgment on ques tion of ejectment particularly when in earlier case present applicant and Advocate were the petitioner and counsel, respectively‑Respec tive show‑cause notices issued to both client and counsel‑Client (almost illiterate and desperately desirous of obtaining order for stay of his dispossession, who in circumstances instructed his counsel to try to obtain stay even if in doing so certain circumstances were concealed from Court) realising gravity of fault which was committed and throwing himself at mercy of Court‑Supreme Court considering his plea for mercy forgiving him and discharged notice issued to client‑Counsel also admitting his fault and tendering unqualified apology and throwing himself at mercy of Court while giving assur ance to Court to be extremely careful in future‑Supreme Court took lenient view of his admittedly grave default withdrew notices and ordered that copies of present order be placed on professional records and files of counsel in High Court, Supreme Court as also Provincial Bar Council and Pakistan Bar Council‑Supreme Court however, in view of unqualified apology and prayer for mercy by counsel, did not pass any order on question why counsel should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct and reported to Bar Council, as it involved question of purity of profession and standards of profes sional ethics.‑[Contempt of Court].
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑One Abdul Hayee son of Abdul Aziz filed a petition in this Court (C. P. S. L. A. No. 189‑R of 1984) seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 27‑6‑1984 of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench), Rawalpindi, through Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate, Supreme Court. Alongwith the petition for leave to appeal, a stay application was also submitted praying for an order for maintenance of status quo with regard to the possession of the petitioner (Abdul Hayee) till the final disposal of the petition for leave to appeal.
- In view of what is stated above the attempt to dodge the Court so as to conceal its final judgment on question of ejectment and withhold this information; particularly when in the earlier case on 21‑2‑1979 Abdul Hayee, the present applicant, and Mr. Samad Mahmood, the Advocate, were the petitioner and the Advocate, respectively, is a very serious matter. Notice is therefore issued to both of them to show cause:
- Accordingly, notices were issued to Mr. Samad Mahmood; Advocate, to show cause:‑
- We have heard Mr. Muhammad Arif Advocate on behalf of Abdul Hayee and Mr. Samad Mahmood.
- Coming to the case of Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate, Supreme Court, we observe that Abdul Hayee (petitioner in the leave petition) had instructed him in an improper way and though this is no excuse whatever for his not acting in a correct and professional manner but taking into account his unqualified apology and admission of his fault, as also the circumstance that he has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court and given an assurance to be extremely careful in future, we are inclined to take a lenient view of his Admittedly grave default.
- The order suspending him from practice as a temporary measure is also withdrawn. The question why Mr. Samad Mahmood should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct and reported to the Bar Council, involving as it does, the question of the purity of the profession and the g standards of professional ethics which an Advocate of this Court must observe is a matter. in which we in view of the unqualified apology and prayer for mercy, would not like to pass any order. However, copies of this order shall be placed on the professional records and files of Mr. Samad Mahmood in the High Court of Lahore and this Court, as also the Punjab Bar Council and the Pakistan Bar Council.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of show-cause notice) -- Art. 185(3)-Contempt of Court - Misconduct -- Counsel and client-Petition for leave to appeal and application for maintenance of status quo with regard to possession of petitioner till final disposal of petition-Judgment of Supreme Court which had a determinative effect on outcome of stay application not referred in application for stay nor copy of said judgment annexed to petition-After considerable effort through questioning at a much later stage, counsel of petitioner stating that there had been a round of litigation up to Supreme Court regarding ejectment order and producing previous judgment before Court-Counsel appearing for present petition and stay application had also appeared for earlier case- -Misconduct Contempt of Court-Conduct of both client and counsel was an attempt to dodge Court so as to conceal its final judgment on ques tion of ejectment particularly when in earlier case present applicant and Advocate were the petitioner and counsel, respectively-Respec tive show-cause notices issued to both client and counsel-Client (almost illiterate and desperately desirous of obtaining order for stay of his dispossession, who in circumstances instructed his counsel to try to obtain stay even if in doing so certain circumstances were concealed from Court) realising gravity of fault which was committed and throwing himself at mercy of Court-Supreme Court considering his plea for mercy forgiving him and discharged notice issued to client-Counsel also admitting his fault and tendering unqualified apology and throwing himself at mercy of Court while giving assur ance to Court to be extremely careful in future-Supreme Court took lenient view of his admittedly grave default withdrew notices and ordered that copies of present order be placed on professional records and files of counsel in High Court, Supreme Court as also Provincial Bar Council and Pakistan Bar Council-Supreme Court however, in view of unqualified apology and prayer for mercy by counsel, did not pass any order on question why counsel should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct and reported to Bar Council, as it involved question of purity of profession and standards of profes sional ethics.-[Contempt of Court].
Judgment & Decree
(iii) Why he should not be proceeded against for professional mis conduct? Similarly, a show‑cause notice was also issued to Abdul Hayee (the petitioner in the leave petition) to show cause:‑ (i) Why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of this Court? and (ii) Why he should not be prosecuted for the offence, if any? In response to the above notices, Mr. Samad Mahmood submitted three explanations, the first dated 16‑7‑1984, the second dated 29‑7‑1984 and the last one dated 13‑8‑1984. In the last mentioned explanation submitted on 13‑8‑1984 it was said:‑ "In response to the notice dated 9‑7‑1984 issued by this August Court, it is most respectfully submitted that on 8‑7‑1984 I tendered un qualified apology immediately and threw myself at the mercy of this August Court. Since the notice has now been issued, I again tender‑unqualified apology in writing and throw myself at the mercy of this August Court. I fully realise my fault and assure this August Court that I shall be extremely careful in future. I earnestly regret inconvenience caused to this August Court and seek forgiveness. I pray for withdrawal of the earlier replies dated 16‑7‑1984 and 29‑7‑1984." Similarly, Abdul Hayee (the petitioner in the leave petition) submitted two explanations, the first dated 16‑7‑1.984 and the second dated 13‑8‑1984. In his last mentioned explanation 13‑8‑1984 Abdul Hayee submitted: ‑ "In response to the notice dated 9‑8‑1984 of this August Court, I tender unqualified apology for having instructed my counsel in an improper way. I have hardly studied upto the 4th standard of the Primary School and consequences were not fully realised by me. I, however, now fully realise the gravity of the fault which has been committed by me and throw myself at the mercy of this August Court and pray for mercy. Earlier explanation submitted on 16‑7‑1984 may graciously be allowed to be withdrawn and forgiveness shown to me." We have heard Mr. Muhammad Arif Advocate on behalf of Abdul Hayee and Mr. Samad Mahmood. So far as the case of Abdul Hayee is concerned, we observe that he is almost illiterate and was desperately desirous of obtaining an order for stay of his dispossession. In these circumstances, he instructed his counsel to try to obtain it, even if in doing so certain important circumstances were concealed from this Court. This is a serious misdemeanor but considering his plea for mercy, we have decided to forgive him and discharge the notice issued to him." Coming to the case of Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate, Supreme Court, we observe that Abdul Hayee (petitioner in the leave petition) had instructed him in an improper way and though this is no excuse whatever for his not acting in a correct and professional manner but taking into account his unqualified apology and admission of his fault, as also the circumstance that he has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court and given an assurance to be extremely careful in future, we are inclined to take a lenient view of his Admittedly grave default. In these circumstances, the notices‑ (i) Why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of this Court? and (ii) Why he should not be prosecuted for the offence, if any? are discharged. The order suspending him from practice as a temporary measure is also withdrawn. The question why Mr. Samad Mahmood should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct and reported to the Bar Council, involving as it does, the question of the purity of the profession and the g standards of professional ethics which an Advocate of this Court must observe is a matter. in which we in view of the unqualified apology and prayer for mercy, would not like to pass any order. However, copies of this order shall be placed on the professional records and files of Mr. Samad Mahmood in the High Court of Lahore and this Court, as also the Punjab Bar Council and the Pakistan Bar Council. The notices issued to Mr. Samad Mahmood and Abdul Hayee shall stand disposed of in these terms. M. Z. M. Appeal allowed.