Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 2226 1961 SLD 2226 = 1961 PLD 515
Lahore High Court
Civil Miscellaneous No. 542 of 1955, decided on 23rd December 1960.  
Presented By: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ahmad and Bashir Ahmad, JJ
M. B. Zaman for A. G.  
Respondent in person.   Dates of hearing : 12th, 13th and 14th October 1959.  

DR. BASHIR AHMAD HAQQANI -Applicant  

VERSUS

  SIKANDAR BAKHT, PLEADER- Respondent

Law: Legal Practitioners Act, 1879

Section: S. 13

(a) Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879)-----   ----- S. 13-Professional misconduct-Making false averioment in application for enrolment as legal practitioner (Pleader) that applicant was never convicted of any offence by Criminal Court-Plea of lapse of memory-Plea that conviction under S. 292. Penal Code (XLV of 1860) was based on confession, made on assurance, that "nothing serious will flow from conviction"-Not accepted-Criminal Court's judgment conclusive proof of conviction.   (b) Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879)-----   ----- S. 13 (f)-Legal practitioner-Professional misconduct-Cl. (f) not of restricted con notation-Not affected by principle of ejusdem generis-Essentials for application of principle-Conduct extraneous to profession may form subject of enquiry-Question to be determined : Whether legal practitioner fit to continue to be officer of Court.   Held, that clause (f) of section 13, Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, cannot be given any restricted connotation because of the preceding clauses and is not affected by the principle of ejusdem generis.   The modern tendency of the law is to attenuate the application of the rule of ejusdem generis. Before the principle could be invoked, there must be a distinct genus or category. The specific words must apply not to different objects of a widely differing character but to something, which can be called a class or kind of objects. Where this is lacking, the rule cannot apply, and if the words are clearly wide in their meaning they ought not to be qualified on the ground of their association with other words.   In cases under clause (f) the question that falls for deter mination is whether a pleader is fit to continue to be an officer of the Court .   The material point for determination in each case is the nature of misconduct and its bearing on the competence of legal practi tioner to discharge his duties towards his client and the Court of which he is an officer. It is universally recognised that the legal profession is an honourable profession which is limited to a select few to practise. It is limited to persons who are duly qualified and about…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register