2002 PLP 3679 (YLR)

Representation

• Narain Das C. Motiani for Respondent No. 2.
• 2. Mr. Muhammad Shaft Advocate has no objection to the admission of this criminal miscellaneous application to regular hearing. The criminal miscellaneous application pertains to the custody of a bus which is lying with the police.
• On 28‑11‑2000 when the matter was placed before me, by consent it was adjourned to 30‑11‑2000. Again by consent it was adjourned to 6‑12‑2000. On 6‑12‑2000 learned Advocate for the applicant filed certified copies of certain documents, which were placed on record, and copies were supplied to the other side. The matter came to be adjourned to 13‑12‑2000.
• The main thrust of the arguments rendered by Mr. Narain Das Motiani, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the impugned order was obtained by fraud that the consent extended by the counsel was his individual act and due to the collusion, the applicant was deprived of a valuable property.
• Admittedly the main revision application was admitted to regular hearing with the consent of the counsel for the respondent. At the time of regular hearing the orders passed were set aside and custody of the vehicle was directed to be handed over to petitioner Abdul Kaleem on his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees twenty five lacs only). Above mentioned order was passed on 13‑12‑2000, and the applicant/respondent No.2 kept quiet up to 25‑1‑2001 when the instant application was filed. Interim orders were the said application. In pursuance of notice of this Court the applicant filed counter‑affidavit on 9‑2‑2002. It was pointed out the respondent No has challenged dated 13‑12‑2002 before the Honourable Supreme Court Pakistan Alongwith counter‑affidavit a Photostat Petition No.2‑K of 2001 was annexed and it was asserted the respondent No.2 had this with ulterior Respondent No.2 has no explanation to offer for this intentional concealment, as did not disc the time of moving the instant application. ever, the perusal of record reveals, that the his steps, and withdrew his petition from the Honourable Supreme Court, which was disposed of, having been withdrawn vide order dated 20‑2‑2001. Strangely enough respondent No.2 at no point of time made any complaint against Mr. Muhammad Shafi, for playing fraud, who had remained his Advocate throughout the proceedings, which were initiated by moving an application before the learned Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M. Mirpur Khas on 9‑8‑2000 and till the passing of the crucial order by this Court. Though subsequently Syed Maddad Ally Shah appeared for him who moved the present application on 25‑1‑2001. But again Syed Maddad Ally Shah appears to have been superceded by Mr. Narain Das C. Motiani. Who argued this matter.
• Be that as it may from the above facts one thing is glaringly evident, that there was something behind the curtain, and that the hands of respondent No.2 were not clean. He who seeks equity must come with clean hands. The jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C., is to be rarely exercised in most exceptional cases to do real justice. Certainly the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is neither meant for nor should be exercised to disturb the orders passed by consent of the parties. More particularly when the party himself had remained passive and did not initiate any action whatsoever against the Advocate, against whom fraud has been alleged. Learned counsel has affirmed this fact in clear terms during arguments, that the respondent No.2 has not complained anywhere about the alleged act of fraud committed by Mr. Muhammad Shafi, Advocate. The application being without substance is dismissed.
• The conduct of Mr. Narain Das C. Motiani. Advocate during the hearing was noticed to be quite disharmonious and below the required level of decency.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree