Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 392 1971 SLD 392 1971 SCMR 776
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. K-14 of 1971, decision dated: 30th November 1971
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND SAJJAD AHMAD, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SAEEDUDDIN alias SAEEDA--Appellant

VS

THE STATE--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Advocate-Duty of Advocate, disregard of rule of practice and rule of courtesy failing to give any intimation to Court of his inability to appear before it-Court, held, would de justified in ordering removal of Advocate's name from Roll of Advocates for such act of discourtesy-Advocate on being repentant and realising his mistake, Court excusing him with a warning to be careful in future. Gholam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record in person. Date of hearing : 30th November 1971. ORDER HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.----The learned Advocate-on-Record was ,engaged to file the petition for special leave at Lahore and he appeared with another learned Advocate before a learned Judge of this Court in chambers for moving an application for interim bail. The bail was refused and the petition was sent to Karachi for registration as it was directed against an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan. The petition was fixed for hearing at Karachi during the last session of the Court there and due intimation of this fact was given to the Advocate on Record by Registered Post/ Acknowledgment Due but when the petition came up for hearing before the Court no one, was present. It was passed over and again called on after all the other petitions had been disposed of. Again no one was present. The Court, after examining the record and finding that notice of the date of hearing had been duly served by Registered Post/ Acknowledgment Due on the Advocate-on-Record, dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. Thereafter, another petition was filed by another Advocate­-on-Record at Karachi for the restoration of the petition on the ground that the Advocate-on-Record engaged at Lahore had not intimated to his client that he would not be able to attend the hearing of the Court at Karachi. No such intimation was given to this Count either. Hence this Court, while restoring the petition, directed notice to issue to the Advocate-on-Record concerned to show cause as to why action- should not betaken against him for neither appearing before the Court on the date the petition for special leave was fixed for hearing nor giving any intimation to the Court of his inability, if any, to appear in the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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