P L D 2006 Lahore 735 (PLP)

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

The S.H.O. is present. On his instructions, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab submits that no Mela at all was held by the petitioner. Therefore, there was no question of interference from the respondents.

2. Previous orders may be revisited to decide this matter conclusively. The criminal original was filed by the petitioner on the ground that despite statement of S.H.O. before this Court on 26-5-2006, he interfered in the petitioner's lawful business i.e. running of Mela. On 21-6-2006, the S.H.O. was directed to appear on 28-6-2006. On 28-6-2006, the learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that F.I.R. No.552 of 2006 was registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala in addition to his earlier grievance. The S.H.O. appeared before the Court and submitted that the said F.I.R. was registered on application of Tehsil Municipal Officer on the ground that the petitioner attempted to raise construction for circus illegally on the Government land near Mini Stadium, Sheikhupura Road, Gujranwala. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that petitioner attempted to raise temporary construction to hold the Mela on a private place and not on a Government place. Both, the learned counsel for the petitioner and S.H.O. were adamant and firm in their versions. To determine the controversy and on request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Shahid Hussain, Deputy Registrar of this Court was appointed as a Commission to visit the actual site and report whether the subject land was a Government property or a private property. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,000 as fee of the Commission. The Commission was, directed to submit his report in 10 days and the office was directed to refix this case on 10-7-2006.

3. Today neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. It is further reported that despite orders of this Court, the petitioner did not pay Rs.5,000 fee of the Commission. This fact is also mentioned in the report of the Commission. According to the report, neither the petitioner contacted the Commission nor deposited fee. However, in order to comply with orders of this Court, the Commission proceeded to Gujranwala as required under orders of this Court.

4. According to the report of the Commission, he reached Gujranwala after informing the concerned parties where following officers were found present: (1) Mr. Mehmood Ahmad Bhatti, Tehsildar City, Gujranwala. (2) Mr. Muhammad Amin Patwari Halga Gujranwala Zarai along with record. (3) Mr. Fida Hussain, T.t4.O., Khayali Town, Gujranwala. (4) Mr. Saifullah Virk, S.H.O. Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala. However, the petitioner was absent.

5. The Commission along with Revenue Officer inspected the site and found that no construction was raised by the petitioner. However, he saw some material and items which are usually used in running circus viz. tents, iron bars, display boards, temporary scats and bamboos. According to the report, the site subject-matter of the controversy, is not owned by any private person, as a matter of fact, it is owned by the Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala. In this regard necessary documents were provided to him by the concerned Revenue Officer which are attached with his report. The Local Commission also recorded statements of some other persons who are living or doing business in the same area. They also confirmed that the site under dispute is owned by the Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala.

6. Despite statement of the S.H.O. that the land does not belong to a private person, it belongs to Municipal Corporation on which the petitioner attempted to raise temporary construction to run circus without any authority or permission, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the land belongs to a private party. On his request and to ascertain the actual reality, the Commission was appointed. It is very unfortunate that the people have forgotten how to conduct as a lawyer in Court and in public. To make false and incorrect statement in Court is considered part of advocacy nowadays by some gentlemen Members of the Bar which is actually not so. A lawyer is required to represent his client to the best of his abilities but it does not include disloyalty and disrespect to the Court by making unreasonable assertions/noise and suppression of facts. Every lawyer appearing in the Court is required under the law to assist the Court and, of course, not expected to mislead the Court or look for undue favour in the name of watching/defending interest of client.

7. Neither the petitioner nor the learned counsel obeyed and carried out orders of this Court to deposit the fee of the Local Commission. They were also not available at the site when the Local Commission arrived there to inspect the same to prepare his report on direction of the Court. It may be reiterated that the Commission was appointed on request of the learned counsel for the petitioner as he was not ready to accept the statement of the S.H.O. Both of them, the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner have not entered appearance today in the Court. Thus the misconduct and behaviour of the learned counsel and the petitioner is evident and speak volumes from the above narrated facts. It has dismayed me. It is about time that leaders of the Bar must put their house in order. For them, it is time to act, and act now.

8. Resultantly, this criminal original petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000 to the petitioner and Rs.5,000 to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The office is directed to initiate the measures to recover the same in accordance with law. After recovery of the said amount, it will be paid to the Dispensary situated in the premises of this Court.

9. As far as fee of the Local Commission is concerned, the State is directed to pay the same to the Local Commission. In this regard also, the office is directed to proceed as provided under the law and rules. S.M.B./M-422/L Petition dismissed.