1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-One Abdul Hayee son of Abdul Aziz filed a petition in this Court (C. P.
2. S. L. A. No, 189-R of 1984) seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 27-6-1984 of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench), Rawalpindi, through Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate, Supreme Court. Alongwith the petition for leave to appeal, a stay application was also submitted praying for an order for maintenance of status quo with regard to the possession of the petitioner (Abdul Hayee) till the final disposal of the petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' The stay application came up for hearing before the Court on 8-7-1984 when the following order was passed:- "It has been discovered that the judgment of this Court dated 21-2-1979 which has a determinative effect on the outcome of this application, has not at all been referred in it nor a copy of that judgment has been annexed to the petition. It was after considerable effort through questioning, that at a much later stage, the counsel stated that there has been a round of litigation up to the Supreme Court regarding the ejectment order. Then he asked his client present in Court to take out the judgment from the big brief of the case with the client (applicant). He then took it out and presented it in Court. When questioned as to who had drafted the petition and the application both of them have stated that Mr. Samad Mahmood did it.
4. ' In view of what is stated above the attempt to dodge the Court so as to conceal its final judgment on question of ejectment and withhold this information; particularly when in the earlier case on 21- 2-1979 Abdul Hayee, the present applicant, and Mr. Samad Mahmood, the Advocate, were the petitioner and the Advocate, respectively, is a very serious matter. Notice be therefore issued to both of them to show cause:
(1) Why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of this Court?
(2) Why they should not be prosecuted for the offence, if any ? And
(3) Why Mr. Samad Mahmood be not proceeded against for professional misconduct ?
5. ' In the meanwhile, subject to all just exceptions he is, as a temporary measure, suspended from practice in this Court."
6. ' Accordingly, notices were issued to Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate, to show cause:- (i)Why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of this Court?
(ii) Why he should not be prosecuted for the offence, if any? And
(iii) Why he should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct?
7. ' Similarly, a show-cause notice was also issued to Abdul Hayee (the petitioner in the leave petition) to show cause: - (i)Why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of this Court? And
(ii) Why he should not be prosecuted for the offence, if any?
8. ' In response to the above notices, Mr. Samad Mahmood submitted three explanations, the first dated 16-7-1984, the second dated 29-7-1984 and the last one dated 13-8-1984. In the last mentioned explanation submitted on 13-8-1984 it was said:- "In response to the notice dated 9-7-1984 issued by this August Court, it is most respectfully submitted that on 8-7-1984 I tendered unqualified apology immediately and threw myself at the mercy of this August Court.
9. ' Since the notice has now been issued, I again tender unqualified apology in writing and throw myself at the mercy of this August Court.
10. ' 1 fully realise my fault and assure this August Court that I shall be extremely careful in future.
11. ' I earnestly regret inconvenience caused to this August Court and seek forgiveness. I pray for withdrawal of the earlier replies dated 16-7-1984 and 29-7-1984."
12. ' Similarly, Abdul Hayee (the petitioner in the leave petition) submitted two explanations, the first dated 16-7-1984 and the second dated 13-8-1984. In his last mentioned explanation 13-8-1984 Abdul Hayee submitted:- "In response to the notice dated 9-8-1984 of this August Court, I tender unqualified apology for having instructed my counsel in an improper way. I have hardly studied upto the 4th standard of the Primary School and consequences were not fully realised by me.
13. ' I, however, now fully realise the gravity of the fault which has been committed by me and throw myself at the mercy of this August Court and pray for mercy.
14. ' Earlier explanation submitted on 16-7-1984 may graciously be allowed to be withdrawn and forgiveness shown to me."
15. ' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Arif Advocate on behalf of Abdul Hayee and Mr. Samad Mahmood.
16. So far as the case of Abdul Hayee is concerned, we observe that he is almost illiterate and was desperately desirous of obtaining an order for stay of his dispossession. In these circumstance3, he instructed his counsel to try to obtain it, even if in doing so certain important circumstances were concealed from this Court. This is a serious misdemeanour but considering his plea for mercy, we have decided to forgive him and discharge the notice issued to him."
17. ' Coming to the case of Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate, Supreme Court, we observe that Abdul Hayee (petitioner in the leave petition) had instructed him in an improper way and though this is no excuse whatever for his not acting in a correct and professional manner but taking into account his unqualified apology and admission of his fault, as also the circumstance that he has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court and given an assurance to be extremely careful in future, we are inclined to take a lenient view of his admittedly grave default.
18. ' In these circumstances, the notices- (i)Why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of this Court? And
(ii) Why he should not be prosecuted for the offence, if any? Are discharged. The order suspending him from practice as a temporary measure is also withdrawn.
19. The question why Mr. Samad Mahmood should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct and reported to the Bar Council, involving as it does, the question of the purity of the profession and the standards of professional ethics which an Advocate of this Court must observe is a matter, in which we, in view of the unqualified apology and prayer for mercy, would not like to pass any order. However, copies of this order shall be placed on the professional records and files of Mr. Samad Mahmood in the High Court of Lahore and this Court, as also the Punjab Bar Council and the Pakistan Bar Council.
20. ' The notices issued to Mr. Samad Mahmood and Abdul Hayee shall stand disposed of in these terms.