2001 PLP 1986 (YLR)

Respondent in person. SYED REHMAN KHAN (MEMBER),‑‑This appeal under section 41 (5) of the Legal Practitioners `and Bar Councils Act, 1973 calls in question the validity of the order of the Disciplinary Committee, dated 11‑2‑2000, whereby the complaint of the appellant against the respondent, who was allegedly guilty of professional misconduct, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15‑5‑2000 the appellant Khial Baz submitted an application against the respondent Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan Mohmand, Advocate alleging therein that the appellant engaged the respondent as a counsel for his son Khital Baz, who was involved in a murder case, registered vide F.I.R. No.172, dated 29‑5‑1996, Police Station Bahber and that a sum of Rs.10,000 as legal remuneration was fixed and paid to him; that the respondent after appearing only for three dates of hearing, disappeared and then did not pursue the case of his son Khial Baz and thus, has committed professional misconduct.

3. In response to a summon issued by the Disciplinary, Committee of the N.‑W.F.P., Bar Council the respondent submitted his written statement explaining therein that he was engaged by the appellant as a counsel for his son, who was involved in murder case registered vide F.I.R. No.172, dated 29‑5‑1996, Police Station, Badhber and a sum of Rs.11,000 was fixed as legal fee, out of which the appellant paid only Rs.5,000 to the respondent and the remaining Rs.6,000 was still outstanding against the appellant. He further contended that an application for exemption from personal appearance/attendance of the accused was submitted by him and obtained permission for the accused to appear through his counsel, who later on was acquitted as a result of an application submitted by the respondent under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. The statement of respondent was supported by attested copies of order sheets, statements of P.Ws., application for the release of the accused on bail and application for exemption of the accused Khial Baz from personal appearance and permission to appear through counsel. .

4. That after hearing of the preliminary arguments on the question of maintainability of the complaint, the Disciplinary Committee of the N.W.F.P., Bar Council came to the conclusion that the respondent was not guilty of professional misconduct and resultantly the complaint was dismissed.

5. The appellant being aggrieved with the order, dated 11‑2‑2000, passed by Disciplinary Committee of N.W.F.P. Bar Council filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

6. The perusal of the complaint, dated 15‑5‑2000 submitted by the appellant in the Provincial Bar Council, would show that no ostensible allegations of professional mis conduct has been levelled against the respondent and has only prayed for the repayment of Rs.10,000 allegedly paid by the appellant to the respondent as legal fee for conducting the case of his son. The perusal of the record of the Sessions Court, requisitioned by this Tribunal that the respondent had vigorously perused the case of Khial Baz son of the appellant alongwith other two co‑accused Naseem and Zera Baz. Application for the release on bail and for exemption from personal appearance submitted by the respondent are also available on file.

7. The respondent also produced an affidavit of one Masudur Rehman, Advocate, engaged by the appellant, wherein he has stated on solemn affirmation that the respondent used to appear with him in the case of the appellant's son regularly till the last date on which the application under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. was argued by them jointly, as a result of which the accused was acquitted.

8. The other two co‑accused Naseem and Zera Baz, who had jointly signed power of attorney in favour of the, respondent have not filed any such complaint against the respondent.

9. The bare reading of the complaint filed by the appellant would show that it is not a complaint of misconduct, but only a plaint for recovery of the amount allegedly paid by the appellant to the respondent and is, therefore, not maintainable under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. Keeping in view the above facts of the case, the appellant has not established his case against the respondent regarding professional misconduct. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal, with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./332/P Appeal dismissed.