1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 matter. He was also informed that the petition would be posted for hearing again on the 3rd of September 1971. He received this notice also but he now says that he received it at 12mM p.m. Of the 3rd of September 1971 and as such could not be present at Karachi on that date.
5. He filed an explanation in answer to the show-cause notice on the 7th of September 1971 saying that after the interim bail application had been rejected the relations of the client, who were instructing him, took away the papers from him and informed him that they would engage some other Advocate at Karachi.
6. The Court, not being satisfied with this explanation, issued the show-cause notice now under consideration on the 30th of September 1971, The Advocate-on-Record has reiterated what he stated earlier in his explanation arid has tendered apology for his failure to intimate to the Court his inability to appear at Karachi on the 17th of August 1971.
7. The explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. The purpose of having an Advocate-on-Record is that this Court holds such an Advocate to be fully responsible for the prosecution of the proceedings as the representative of his client. Notices are given to the Advocate-on-Record and not to the client. It is therefore incumbent on an Advocate-on-Record to attend to these notices in proper time, and if for any reason he is unable to do so, it is his duty to intimate to this Court his inability to appear in the matter and to apply for his discharge. It is only after the Advocate-on-Record has been discharged, that the Court issues notices directly to the party concerned to engage another Advocate.
8. Mr. Ghulam Mujtaba has clearly disregarded not only this rule of practice but has also acted contrary to the elementary rule of courtesy by failing to give airy intimation to the Court of his inability to appear at Karachi. For this act of discourtesy the Court would have been justified in ordering removal of his name from the Roll of Advocates; but having regard to the fact that he is now repentant and realises his mistake, we excuse him this time with a warning that he should be careful in future.
9. Office should keep a note of this warning and put it up before the Court should occasion ever arise again to take proceedings against the learned Advocate-on-Record.