JUSTICE SHAFIUR RAHMAN (CHAIRMAN).--The Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council has referred under section 41(4) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the joint complaint of Syed Tufail Ahmed and Syed Shakir Hussain against Mr. Yousaf Ali Khan, Bar-at-Law an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, to this Tribunal.
2. The two complainants were the plaintiffs in a civil suit claiming a share in agricultural property measuring 187 kanals. According to them, the property in India of one Jaffar was inherited by his widow Mst. Maqsoodun Nisa as a limited owner and on independence and migration she got allotted the land in her name in lieu thereof. Jaffar being the last male holder, they sought -a share in the allotted land on the death of Mst. Maqsoodun Nisa. They failed in all the three Courts in establishing their claim to be heirs. Nonetheless, they engaged the respondent Mr. Yousaf Ali Khan as an Advocate and Syed Inayat Hussain Shah as an Advocate-on-Record for prosecuting a petition for leave to appeal (C.P.L.A.No.853 of 1976) in the Supreme Court. The date of hearing of that petition was notified as 26th May, 1984. Syed Inayat Hussain Shah on coming to know of it, claims to have sent an intimation by ordinary post to the complainants and to have also informed Mr. Yousaf Ali Khan, respondent of the fact. The respondent however, instructed Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record to seek and obtain from the Court an adjournment as the respondent was already committed to appear in a Sessions trial fixed before the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on the same date.
3. On the 26th of May, 1984, the following order was recorded by the Supreme Court when the matter was taken up in the presence of Syed Inayat Hussain Shah:- "Learned Advocate-on-Record states that he informed the learned counsel for the petitioner, on telephone, on 24-5-1984 that this case had been fixed for today. The learned counsel told him that he was going to Faisalabad and requested him (the Advocate-on-Record) to get this case adjourned.
This is not a good ground for adjournment of the case. Advocate-on-Record himself is unable to argue the case. The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution."
4.The complainants independently of the Advocate and the Advocate-on-Record thereafter moved a Petition for restoration of the petition for leave to Appeal, but that too was refused on 20th February, 1985, by the following order:- "The applicants seek restoration of their petition for leave to appeal (No.853. Of 1976) which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26-5-1984.
In the first place the application is barred by as many as 37 days and the applicants' learned counsel has not been able to make out any good ground for restoration. Secondly, even on merits we do not find it a fit case for interference by this Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed."
5. The defence of the respondent, Mr. Yousaf Ali Khan, is that he had to represent the accused in a Sessions case fixed for trial at Faisalabad on 26-5-1984. He appeared in that case and fully participated A in the proceedings which kept him busy for the day. He had informed Mr. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record and instructed him to seek an adjournment on that ground.
6. Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record was examined by the. Tribunal and he made the following statement with regard to his handling of the matter on the date fixed for hearing i.e. 26-5-1984, and the conduct thereafter:- "I do not remember whether the respondent had . Told me in specific terms that it was a Sessions trial on that date which he was going to attend and not the general words of professional engagement. I do not remember that in spite of his saying that he was going to Sessions case, I had told the Court about the professional engagement. May be I had told the Court of his attendance in Sessions case. I do not remember that when soon after returning from Faisalabad, the respondent had asked me whether I had informed the Court that it was on account of Sessions Court work that he had to go to Faisalabad, I had told him that I had done so. I do not remember whether on first inquiry from the respondent 1 had told him what was the order dictated and he had pointed out to me that why the Sessions trial at Faisalabad was not mentioned in the dictated order."
7.. The grievance of the complainants against the respondent appears to be two-fold. First that he realized the charges and undertook to inform him by telegram of the actual date of hearing of the matter in the Supreme Court. He failed to discharge that duty. Secondly, he neglected to put in appearance or make adequate he arrangement for his absence.
8. As regards the first grievance, it was not mentioned in the complaint at the first opportunity. This responsibility could more appropriately be undertaken by the Advocate-on-Record rather than the counsel. Except for the word of the complainants there is no other material to sustain this grievance. We consider it un-established.
9.We have verified from the record of the criminal trial that on 26th of May, 1984, the respondent had attended the Sessions trial at Faisalabad, had full day's engagement and in view of .Earlier fixation of that case could not have possibly requested for adjournmentabsented himself. He did the most appropriate thing, namely, to instruct the Advocate-on-Record to make a request fully explaining the kind of professional engagement and the reason for his inability to attend. He was not remiss in his conduct, nor was he at fault in handling the brief of the complainants in the manner that he did.
10. We find that no case of misconduct of the respondent is made out and hence dismiss the complaint. We make no order as to costs. Parties be informed.