JUSTICE SHAFIUR RAHMAN (CHAIRMAN).--In proceedings ex parte against him the Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council referred the case of the respondent, an Advocate of the Supreme Court under section 41(4) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 to the Tribunal for decision.
2. Mr. Barkat Ali Randhawa made a complaint dated 8-2-1986 to the Punjab Bar Council that he had engaged the respondent for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, that he had paid him the full fee and the expenses, that the counsel assured him that the appeal had been filed in proof whereof he handed over to him a Paper Book also. Subsequently, on making enquiries from the Supreme Court Office he learnt that no such appeal had been filed.
3. The complaint dated 8-2-1986 was addressed to the Secretary, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore which was returned to him on 17-10-1987 for presentation before the Pakistan Bar Council which he did by Memo. Dated 19-11-1987 received on 1-12-1987.
4. On 24-12-1988 the date fixed before the Tribunal, the respondent did not put in appearance in spite of service of notice sent by registered post. Complainant's statement was recorded. On the adjourned date the respondent put in appearance whereupon the proceedings were recommenced and concluded in his presence and with his participation.
5. The respondent admitted that he had been engaged by the complainant for filing the appeal and that he did not in fact file the appeal. He explained his omission by stating that "the petition was not filed by me because I was not paid the fee which was undertaken to be paid before filing of the appeal". But the three factors which go against him are his unconditional assurance in writing EX.P.W.1/2 that the appeal will be fixed in December, 1985 and the second is his handing over the completed paper book of the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal giving the impression that the appeal had already been filed. The third is that according to him even when he was engaged and received the brief it was time-barred and when, according to him he received the last instalment of full fee the matter had become more time-barred and for that reason he did not file it.
6. As regards the first he stated "Ex.PW.l/2 is photo copy in my handwriting and is dated 21-10-1985.
Actually it was undertaken by him that he will pay me in the month of November 1985 and then I will file the petition immediately on such payment... I gave the writing Exh.PW.l/2 on his verbal asking for it. l have not mentioned the conditions in this writing EX.PW.1/2... In my note EXh.PW.l/2 I had written the word "fixed" because I was assured that after receipt of fee and expenses I will file it and get it fixed in December, 1985."
7. As regards the second event the respondent explained "I had supplied the copy of the paper book to be filed in the Supreme Court on the specific request of the complainant so that by showing it he could arrange the required money to meet the fee and expenses. I have written 11-5- 1985 as the date of preparation and not of filing, on the index sheet of the Paper Book for the Supreme Court. It is incorrect that I had given the copy of the Paper Book showing of these dates as proof of my having filed a Petition for leave to Appeal."
8. As regards the third event he stated "I was approached for filing the petition when the case was already time-barred but an application for condonation of delay had to be moved" . ... . "The fee fixed was Rs.4,000 including all expenses. I received all the amount. I did not file the petition after receipt of fee because it had become time-barred." Rs.1,000 were paid at first and the remainder in instalments. The amount of Rs.3,000 paid in instalments was after the matter had become time- barred. The complainant contacted and engaged me two or three days prior to the completion of Paper Book on 11-5-1985, and by that date the appeal was time-barred because the judgment was announced on 20-2-1985. 1 had not drafted the application for condonation of delay because it was not till then clear to me whether the complainant had notice of the judgment.
9. After examining the statement of the complainant, the explanation given by the respondent and the material placed on record, we find that the respondent by handing over the complete paper book and by extending unconditional assurance that the petition shall be fixed in December, 1985 for hearing gave the impression to the complainant who was justified in believing that the petition had already A been filed when in fact it was not filed. We also find it un-established that the fee was not paid in time or that at the time of engagement of the respondent limitation had expired, for the paper .Book complete in all respects including even the affidavit of the respondent certifying service of the notice of filing of the Civil Petition does not contain any application adverting to the delay in filing the petition. The respondent admits not to have ever reminded the complainant in writing about the deficiencies asking him to remove them before the Civil Petition could be filed.
10.These facts establish his misconduct inasmuch as he-- (i)failed to institute the petition for leave to appeal in Supreme Court;
(ii) gave the false impression to the complainant that the petition had been filed and was awaiting fixation which may folldw soon; and,
(iii) charged fee and expenses for services not rendered.
11. In the circumstances we consider the respondent guilty of l misconduct and consider his suspension from practice for six months an adequate and appropriate punishment. Hence, while holding the respondent guilty of professional misconduct we order his suspension from practice for a period of six months. He shall be debarred during this period of six months from practising as an Advocate in any Court or before any authority or person in Pakistan under sections 43(6) and 43(7) of the Act. Keeping in view the undeserved protracted suffering of the complainant, cost of rupees five thousand only is awarded which shall be payable by the respondent to the complainant as costs of proceedings. This being the first complaint of its nature against the respondent, we have taken, what may appear, somewhat lenient view in the case. Parties be informed.