' A certified copy of order, dated 24th July 1979, has been filed but my apprehension is that this copy has not been correctly prepared. My feeling is that after the words {{URDU TEXT}} the word should not be there because Malik Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate, was not counsel for the respondent and according to the impugned order he had appeared on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Hussain,
(sic) Ch. Muhammad Nasim, Additional District Judge, Gujrat. The petitioner had engaged Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate, as his counsel to defend the appeal. It came up before the said learned Additional District Judge on 29th May, 1979, for arguments. But at the request of the parties' counsel it was adjourned to 24th July 1979, for the purpose. As stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said learned Additional District Judge was transferred before 24th July 1979. The.
Appeal, therefore, came up before Ch. Anwar Ali, Additional District Judge, Gujrat, on 24th July 1979, when, according to the record, Ch. Muhammad Munir, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondent (appellant in the first appeal) and Malik Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of. Ch. Muhammad Hussain counsel for the appellant (respondent in the first appeal). The learned Additional District Judge, Ch. Anwar Ali, . However, adjourned the appeal to 11th October 1979, for arguments after recording a note to the effect that the appeal had been received by transfer. On 11th October 1979, he heard arguments of the parties' counsel and, while accepting the appeal, decreed the suit of the respondent on payment of Rs, 15,000. Thereafter, the appellant made an application under Order XLI, rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for re-hearing of the appeal. It was stated in the application that after the transfer of the appeal to the Court of Ch. Anwar Ali, Additional District Judge, no notice of its transfer was served on him and it was only on 27th October 1979, that a person belonging to his village had informed him that an ex parte decree had been passed against him. The application was contested by the respondent and, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide his order dated the 11th May 1980 In his order it was noted by the learned Additional District Judge that since Malik Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the appellant's counsel on 24th July 1979, when the appeal had been received by him on transfer, it was not necessary to issue notice to the appellant. It was also observed by the learned Additional District Judge that the appeal had been disposed of by him after hearing the parties' counsel on a subsequent date, namely, llth October 1979, and thus the appellant was not entitled to re-hearing of the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge in this behalf, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Malik Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate, had no authority to enter appearance on behalf of the learncd counsel for the appellant and, therefore, even if he had appeared before the learned Additional District Judge, on 24th July 1979, that did not absolve the learned appellate Court of the responsibility to serve the appellant with a notice of the transfer of the appeal. The argument proceeds that Malik Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate, could not appear on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant, without filing a memorandum of appearance as required by section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, and since no such memorandum was filed by him, his appearance was no appearance in the eye of law. The procedural law relating to agents and pleaders is embodied under Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proviso attached to sub-rule (5) of rule 4 of the said Order provides that a memorandum of appearance will not have to be filed by a pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court on behalf of such party. These provisions relating to suits. Are also applicable to appeals by virtue of the provisions of section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not disputed that Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate. Was the duly appointed counsel of the appellant. Also, in the application for re- hearing of the appeal, which was filed by Ch. Muhammad Hussain, it was not stated that he had not asked Malik Ghulam Sarwar to appear on his behalf Therefore, Malik Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate, could enter appearance on his behalf without filing a memorandum of appearance. Since the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act relates to the conduct of and other matters relating to, the Advocates and the Bar Councils and does not lay down procedure to be followed by the Courts in deciding suits and appeals which procedure is set out in the Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions of he said Act cannot override the relevant provisions contained in the Code. If Malik Ghulam Sarwar had not fulfilled the requirement of section 22 of the said Act, he might have to face the charge of professional misconduct under the said Act but his failure to file the memorandum of appearance does not amount to an error of procedure affecting the validity of the proceedings held by the learned Additional District Judge on the basis of his attendance. Thus, the non-filing of the memorandum of appearance by him is of no consequence. In taking this view I am fortified by the following observations of my learned brother Muhammad Afzal Lone, J., in Zafarul Haq v. Waris lqbal and another (1):- "The case was conducted by a senior Advocate of this Court would not have represented the petitioner unless he was instructed by him on his behalf. I am of the view that the non-compliance with section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case does not invalidate the orders passed against the petitioner and he cannot be heard to plead his own pretence to avoid the liability. In this view of the matter, mere non-signing of the power of attorney by the petitioner is not sufficient to rebut the inference that he was deeply involved in the proceedings throughout."
3. The next plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that according to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, on the 1 1 th October, 1979, the appeal had been argued by the parties' counsel before it was decided by him but the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, Ch. Muhammad Hussain, who represented him {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1979 Lah. 793 {{FOOT NOTE}} before the learned Additional District Judge, had written to him a letter saying that be was not present before the learned Additional District Judge to argue the appeal on the said date. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that although after making the order, dated the 24th July, 1979, the learned Additional District Judge had got it noted by the learned counsel for the respondent and Malik Ghulam Sarwar yet his order of 11th October, 1979, did not bear the signatures of the parties' counsel. In view of this, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no proper hearing of the first appeal.
4. Admittedly. The application for re-hearing of the appeal was filed by Ch. Muhammad Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant, but in that application he did not say that he did not appear before the learned Additional District Judge to argue the appeal on 11th October, 1979. There is no affidavit by Ch. Muhammad Hussain in support of the plea raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. This plea is, therefore, an afterthought and also without substance. For obvious reasons, I cannot disbelieve the judicial record on the score of the letter of the appellant's counsel who did not have the courage of alleging facts, as stated in the letter, in the application made before the learned Additional District Judge. 1 am, therefore, not prepared to believe that the appellant's counsel did not appear before the learned Additional District Judge on the date of arguments.
5. As regards the absence of the signatures of the parties' counsel on the order of the learned Additional District Judge to the effect that he had heard arguments of the parties' counsel it may be pointed out that it is a composite order in which the fact relating to the hearing of arguments was noted and also the decision on the appeal was recorded. It is a matter of common knowledge that signatures of the parties' counsel are rarely obtained when the final order is announced immediately after the conclusion of arguments. It was not necessary to obtain their signatures even with reference to the order made by him on 24th July, 1979, but it seems that the learned Additional District Judge had secured their signatures out of abundant caution with a view to conveying that since the parties' counsel had entered appearance after the transfer of the appeal to him there was no need to issue notices to the parties. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant touching the signatures of the parties' counsel has no merit.
6. In result, I find no substance in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
7. Before parting with this appeal, I would like to point out that when it came up before me on 25th May, 1980, learned counsel for the appellant sought adjournment to file copy of order sheet containing the orders made by the learned Additional District Judge with a view to making submissions for the purpose of the admission of the appeal. I, therefore, adjourned the case to 16th June, 1980. In the meantime, an application, was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case may be fixed for 2nd June, 1980. Accordingly, it was fixed before me on 2nd June, 1980. On that date, he filed certified copy of the order, dated the 24th July, 1979, passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
' In the said copy, Annexure 'A', the attendance of the parties' counsel was noted as under :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' In view of this, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was hardly any occasion for the appearance of Malik Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate, who had not been appointed as counsel by the appellant, on 24th July, 1979, when his duly - appointed counsel, Ch. Muhammad Hussain, was also present on that date. This created suspicion in my mind with regard to the correctness of the copy as, in view of the impugned order, 1 felt that after the words {{URDU TEXT}} 'there should have appeared the word " or and not the word " ". 1, therefore, obtained the original record through a special messenger. It shows that in the order sheet it is the word{{URDU TEXT}}" and not the word " " which occurs alter the words {{URDU TEXT}}. It seems that an incorrect copy of the order was purposely prepared with a view to enabling the appellant to secure the admission of this appeal to a regular hearing. Necessary action shall, therefore, be taken against the officials at fault, under intimation to this Court. This aspect of the matter shall be taken care of by the Registrar of this Court, immediately.