| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 2029 1961 SLD 2029 = 1961 PLD 162 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1960, decided on 25th January, 1961.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., Fazale Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Karam Elahi Chauhan and Mohammad Ali Zaidi, Advocates Supreme Court, instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Appellant. Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1960, decided on 25th January, 1961.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., Fazale Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Karam Elahi Chauhan and Mohammad Ali Zaidi, Advocates Supreme Court, instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Appellant. Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for
Respondents.
Syed AHMAD HUSSAIN-Appellant
VERSUS
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE WEST RAKISTAN HIGH COURT-Respondents
Law:
Section:
(On appeal from the order of the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of West Pakistan, dated the 15th October, 1956). (a) Special leave to appeal to Supreme Court------ ----Granted to consider whether High Court, in circumstances of case, was justified in cancelling Advocate's certificate-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 160. (b) Advocate------ ----Refugee Advocate (not possessing law degree) of Maler Kotla High Court from Maier Kotla State (India) --Permitted to be enrolled as a "Pleader"-Eligible as such for being enrolled as "Advocate'-Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chap. 6-A, r. 1 (1) (i)"Pleaders"-Used in wide sense embracing all "Pleaders" then practising-High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order, 1955, para. 10-High Court's power to "determine otherwise" suitability of persons to continue to practise. Held, that the word "pleaders" in sub-rule (1) (i) of rule 1 of Chapter 6-A, Rules and Orders (Lahore High Court), Vol. V, added to the Rules on 30th November 1949, has been used in a wide sense embracing "all" pleaders then practising in Courts subordinate to the High Court, in which category the appellant (who did not possess a Law Degree, but was a refugee "Advocate" of the Maier Kotla State High Court in India) was included at the time of his enrolment as an Advocate of the Lahore High Court on 19th November, 1953, having been permitted by that Court to be enrolled as a pleader in 1948. The cancellation, on 15th October 1956, by the Administration Committee of the High Court of the appellant's licence was not in accordance with law. As there was nothing to indicate that the High Court had made the cancellation in exercise of the power given by para. 10 of the High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order, 1955, to "otherwise determine" the suitability of a person enrolled before the commencement of that Order to continue to be entitled to act or plead in the High Court, it was persumed that the appellant's name was duly included in the roll of Advocates of High…