| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 415 1956 SLD 415 1956 PLD 274 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1956, decided on 4th May 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, Dated the 14th February 1955, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 559 of 1954).Dates of hearing : 3rd and 4th Ap
Present: Muhammad Munir, C. J, M. Shahabuddin, A.R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
Mahmud All Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by M. Siddiq Attorney for Appellant. A. R. Changez Advocate General of West Pakistan (Fazal Elahi Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz All Attorney for
Respondents.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1956, decided on 4th May 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, Dated the 14th February 1955, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 559 of 1954).Dates of hearing : 3rd and 4th Ap
Present: Muhammad Munir, C. J, M. Shahabuddin, A.R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
Mahmud All Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by M. Siddiq Attorney for Appellant. A. R. Changez Advocate General of West Pakistan (Fazal Elahi Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz All Attorney for
Respondents.
Ch. SARDAR ALI ADVOCATE --Appellant
VS
THE HONBLE JUDGES OF THE LAHORE HIGH COURT (NOW HIGH COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN AT LAHORE) --Respondents
Law:
Section:
(a) Leave to appeal to Federal (Supreme) Court Ground Question, whether proceeding against an Advocate under disciplinary jurisdiction of High Court was not proper mode of relief to client in a case of non refund of fee-have granted. Leave to appeal was granted by the Federal Court against the order of the High Court, suspending an Advocate from practice, where the question was one of ascertaining whether or not the Advocate had refunded the fee to his client and thus satisfied a debt by payment, and, for this proceeding under the High Courts disciplinary jurisdiction over its Advocates was not the proper mode of relief to the client. (b) Advocate Complaint against, under disciplinary juris diction of High Court Ordered to be filed by Judge In Chambers on office report, without hearing complainant Further complaint not incompetent. A complaint against an Advocate, under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court was ordered to be filed by the Judge in Chambers on the assumption that the explanation of the Advocate called for by the office was true, without the com plainant having appeased and been allowed an opportunity to admit or contradict the Advocates allegations embodied in his explanation. Held, that the order was not a final order and was not a bar to a subsequent complaint end proceedings in respect thereof. (c) Letters Patent (Lahore High Court), Cl. (viii) Disciplinary action against Advocate for, reasonable cause ----Expression wider in meaning than professional misconduct Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879), S. 13 cl. (f). Conduct which does. not amount to professional misconduct may be a reasonable cause for the removal of an Advocates name from the rolls. Therefore disciplinary proceedings may be taken against an Advocate if in the opinion of the Court he has been guilty of some misconduct which has a bearing on the question whether he is a fit person to continue to be an officer of the Court and mis conduct need not be attributable to him while he was acting as an advocate. The degree of misconduct may influence the Court in considering whether proceedings should or should not…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492