1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-While granting leave in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 56 of 1973, an order was made by this Court on the 5th of October 1973, to the effect that the proceedings initiated by respon--dent No. 1 for the ejectment of the petitioner in the Court of the Rent Controller shall remain stayed, but the petitioner will continue to deposit monthly rent in that Court during the pendency of the appeal as envisaged by section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. By means of C. M. Application No. 110 of 1974, it was alleged by the petitioner that in complete disregard of this order, respondent No. 1 had continued with ejectment proceedings in the Court of the Rent Controller and obtained an order of ejectment, and had also obtained physical possession of the premises in dispute in execution of the Rent Controller's order. It was alleged in the application that all these proceedings were taken by the respondent as well as the Rent Controller after our order dated the 5th of October 1973, had been passed.
2. When this application came up for hearing on the 14th of March 1974, it was observed that there was no averment that the order dated the 5th of October 1973, was ever conveyed to the Rent Controller, Jhelum. Accord--ingly, we did not consider it necessary to issue any notice to the Rent Controller, but directed that a notice shall go to respondent No. 1 to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of this Court inasmuch as he had disobeyed the interim order dated the 5th of October 1973. We also directed that the possession of the disputed premises shall be restored to the petitioner by the Rent Controller, Jhelum.
3. The respondent No. 1 has appeared in response to our notice, and tendered an unconditional apology, stating that the order dated the 5th of October 1973, was never conveyed to him by his counsel or the special attorney who was prosecuting the matter on his behalf. This position is confirmed by the learned Advocate-on-Record as well as the counsel who appeared for the respondent at the time of the hearing of the petition for special leave to appeal on the 5th of October 1973.
4. It is also stated that possession of the disputed rooms has been restored to the petitioner, as directed by this Court in its order dated the 14th of March 1974.
5. We are, however, constrained to observe that the learned Advocate-on---Record has not acted with due diligence in this matter. He was present at the hearing of the petition on 5-10-1973, and the interim order, maintaining status quo as to the possession of the petitioner, was passed in his presence. It was, therefore, his duty to convey this order to the respondent, even though the special attorney, who was pursuing this matter, did not contact him. If the learned Advocate-on-Record had done his duty, the present proceedings for contempt would not have arisen at all. We would like to express the hope that the learned Advocate-on-Record would be more, careful arid contingent in future.