2000 PLP 1959 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN SHAHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IKRAM ULLAH SALEEMI, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1959 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Bar Council Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, Chairman, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN SHAHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IKRAM ULLAH SALEEMI, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1959 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1959 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal bench comprising: Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, Chairman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1959 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN SHAHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IKRAM ULLAH SALEEMI, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Complainant in person. M. Latif Rawn for Respondent. Respondent in person. Abdul Hafeez Butt, Advocate in person. Ghulam Haider Alghazali, Addl. A.‑G. Muhammad Akbar Bhatti, Secretary, Punjab Bar Council.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑5. 41(4)‑‑‑Professional misconduct of Advocate‑‑‑Suit for recovery of rent amount‑‑‑Compromise having been arrived at between the parties, Advocate of complainant made a conceding statement to the effect that his client (complainant) did not want to pursue the matter‑‑‑Suit was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties‑‑‑Terms of compromise arrived at between the parties having not been denied by complainant, Advocate did not commit any professional misconduct in making conceding statement that complainant did not want to pursue the matter‑‑‑Complaint against Advocate was disposed of in view of terms and undertaking given by the parties.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 10th April, 1999. The charge against the respondent‑Advocate is that in a suit for recovery of rent amounting to Rs.57,600, he made a conceding statement on 9‑2‑1995 to the effect that complainant did not want to pursue the matter in terms of which, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 9‑2‑1995. The stand of the respondent‑Advocate is that the complainant had filed a suit for recovery of the afore‑referred money and an application for execution of the judgment and decree in an ejectment matter. The latter application was disposed of in terms of compromise, dated 19‑1‑1995 through a written application and in the said application of compromise which was marked by the Court as Exh.C‑1, it was stipulated as under:‑‑ (i) That the judgment‑debtor Ghayas‑ud‑Din Butt, shall pay the arrears amounting to Rs.1,12,
000. The payment was to be made through judgment‑debtor's brother namely, Abdul Hafeez Butt, Advocate. (ii) Out of the afore‑referrred amount, Rs.60,000 was paid in Court. (iii) That the future rent of the shop would be Rs.4,000. (iv) That,Mr. Abdul Hafeez Butt, Advocate shall be bound to make the remaining payment of Rs.52,000
2. Respondent‑Advocate admits that since the parties had compromised, in afore‑referred terms, he had instructions to make conceding statement to the effect that complainant/plaintiff did not want to pursue the case.
3. We have gone through the order, dated 19‑1‑1995 and 19‑2‑1995. After the compromise between the parties on 19‑1‑1995, respondent Advocate made the following statement on 9‑2‑1995:‑‑
4. It is conceded by the complainant that Rs.57,600 which was subject matter of the suit in which the afore‑referred statement was made was the same amount which was reduced to Rs.52,000 in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties on 19‑1‑1995. That being so, we are of the view that respondent‑Advocate did not commit any professional misconduct and this complaint is misconceived. However, we note that Mr. Abdul Hafeez Butt, Advocate, real brother of the judgment‑debtor is responsible to make the payment of the amount in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties on 19‑1‑1995. The said Advocate is also present before this Tribunal pursuant to this Tribunal's order. He concedes that the judgment‑debtor Ghayas‑ud‑Din Butt, his real brother is bound to make the payment and he will make efforts for the same. The complaint stands disposed of in terms noted above. H.B.T./M‑1180/L Order accordingly.