2001 PLP 2104 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN (MEMBER) ‑‑‑Sher Zaman son of Gul Karim filed a complaint against Sher Bahader, Advocate alleging therein that the respondent is a practising lawyer at Tehsil's Court premises Takht Bhai; that the respondent was engaged by the complainant for the conduct of certain cases, the details of which have been given in the body of the complaint dated 13‑6‑2000; that the respondent received a sum of Rs.16,300 as fee and out of which Rs.7,500 was received for payment of court‑fee on a declaratory civil suit. Further allegations in the complaint are that besides the respondent fraudulently extracted huge amount for defraying miscellaneous expenses, allegedly incurred on the litigation; that the respondent in fact failed to conduct the cases and consequently, the complainant demanded the return of the abovementioned amount, which the respondent bluntly refused. It is averred that as the respondent has cheated the complainant which amounts to professional misconduct and hence, legal action under the law was prayed for.

2. The Disciplinary Committee of N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar issued notice to respondent and consequently respondent appeared and submitted his written statement, wherein the allegations contained in the complaint were hotly contested. However, it was admitted that the respondent was engaged as counsel by the complainant for various revenue suits and two criminal cases.

3. The Disciplinary Committee of N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council fixed the case for recording evidence of the complainant on 7‑10‑2000. However, on 21‑10‑2000 partial evidence of the complainant was recorded and the case was adjourned to 11‑11‑2000. On the adjourned date of hearing the complainant was absent and the respondent was present, so the learned Members issued notice to the complainant. However, the complainant was burdened with costs of Rs.500. Later on the complainant submitted an application for exonerating him from the payment of costs but the same was rejected on 10‑2‑2001 and the case was adjourned to 3‑3‑2001 for recording the evidence of the complainant. On 3‑3‑2001 the respondent was absent, the witnesses of the complainant were present. A request was made by the Clerk of the respondent Mian Bahader Sher for adjournment of the case. So the learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee adjourned the proceedings to 7‑4‑2001, on payment of costs of Rs.500 to the complainant.

4. The respondent filed a review petition against the order of imposition of costs which was rejected by Disciplinary Committee on 7‑4‑2001. It is this last‑mentioned order which has been impugned in the present revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Tariq Javed, Deputy Advocate‑General for the Government and the respondent were heard at great length.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner Sher Bahader, Advocate has placed on record a medical certificate from Dr. Aurangzeb and submitted on the date fixed as the petitioner was indisposed, so order of the imposition of costs of Rs.500 by the learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee was unwarranted and so it was prayed that the order to the extent of imposition of costs of Rs.500 be struck down.

7. Perusal of the record would show that the case was adjourned on the request of the petitioner and the witnesses of the complainant were present so nominal cost was imposed in order to compensate the complainant for defraying the diet money of the witnesses of the complainant, which was very sound and judicious exercise of discretion by the learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee.

8. On the date when request for adjournment was made, no Medical Certificate or even application for adjournment was submitted by the petitioner and the one available on the record was annexed with the review application dated 30‑3‑2001. This Medical Certificate is undated and seems to be an afterthought and procured subsequently, which conduct also throws doubt on the credentials of the Medical Officer issuing the same and is highly deprecated adjournment is granted by the Courts under the provisions of Order 17, Rule 1 and under sub‑rule (2), C.P.C. the Court has got ample discretion in imposing costs. Ordinarily adjournment is allowed by the Courts subject to payment of costs to the other party in order to relieve the party of the expenses incurred on bringing the witnesses to Court and not by way of penalty.

9. The impugned order is perfectly sound, based on equity and sound exercise of judicial discretion and calls for no interference. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./332/P Revision dismissed.