1982 PLP 713 (SCMR)

Laws Cited

Representation

• Date of hearing : 3rd February, 1982.
• ---S. 3 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 204‑Contempt of Court‑Counsel in petitions filed by them using objectionable phrases like "arbitrary", "without a look", "miserably failed", "one‑sided" "lack of good faith" and "perverse" prima facie indicating an attempt to ridicule High Court‑Respondents (counsel) appearing with a large .number of Advocates stating to have greatest possible regard for superior judiciary and respondents having felt very sorry and expressed regrets‑Respondents also expressing regrets begging to be pardoned, submitting written apologies, deleting objectionable words and under taking to be careful in future in use of such objectionable words‑ Apologies accepted with remarks that smooth flow of stream of justice being necessary in interests of justice nothing should be done which favours of disrespect towards Courts or Presiding Judges.‑[Contempt of Court].
• Muhammad Ismail, Advocate Supreme Court for (First Lawyer Ghulam Muhammad Chahal).
• Sh. Abdul Karim (Second Lawyer), Advocate‑on‑Record in person.
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑These original proceedings arose in the following circumstances : Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Chahal, Advocate respon dent No.1 acting as Advocate of this Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, acting as Advocate‑on‑Record of this Court filed in this Court Civil Petition No. 55 of 1982 on I8‑1‑1982. They also filed a civil miscellaneous application alongwith the main petition for grant of interim stay. Both were drawn by Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Chahal. The miscellaneous application for grant of interim relief came up for hearing before one of us (Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J.). After disposal of the application he pointed out to both the respondents certain words and phrases used in the petition and the application which prima facie, showed an attitude of contempt and rancour towards the learned Judge, who had decided the case in the High Court. All these words read with certain other words used by the learned counsel also, prima facie, indicated as if an attempt was being made to ridicule the High Court. The objectionable words and phrases used were "miserably failed", "one‑sided", "lack of good faith", "perverse", "arbitrary", and "without a look". Serious note having been taken in this behalf, both the respondents were immediately served with show‑cause notice for proper proceedings under different laws. Both of them tried to offer explanations which, in view of the attitude adopted by them at the time of the hearing of the matter in Court in reply to the notice, it is not necessary to reproduce here.
• At the time of hearing both the respondents, appeared with a large number of Advocates of the Lahore High Court. These learned Advocates stated almost with one voice that they have the greatest possible regard for the superior judiciary of Pakistan and that the two respondents to their knowledge and satisfaction are indeed very sorry and have expressed regrets in this behalf. The respondents also stood by and not only expressed regrets, but also begged to be pardoned. In view of the aforenoted circumstances the apologies were accepted and the respondents were directed to make proper amends by submitting the apologies in writing as also by deleting the objec tionable words and phrases. Both of them have submitted separate apologies in writing. They have also undertaken to be "careful in future in the use of such words as aforesaid". The proposed amendments in the petition and the application have also been submitted.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree