1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This case has been taken up against Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza, Advocate High Court who in an irregular and improper manner filed a petition in this Court despite the fact that he is not an Advocate-on-Record nor has he ever been allowed to practise as an Advocate of this Court. The note submitted by Assistant Registrar, Lahore and another note submitted by the Registrar of this Court, on the above question as also the failure of the appellants to deposit the amount of security well in time, are reproduced below:-- ."The petition out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed on.
2. ' 18-7-1982 by Mirza Bashir Muhammad and two others through Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza, Advocate High Court (their special attorney who is also son of petitioner No,1). Alongwith the petition a special power of attorney whereby Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza, Advocate was authorised by the petitioners/appellants to pursue the case was also filed. By this special power of attorney the special attorney namely Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza, Advocate (not of the Supreme Court was authorised to pursue the case by way of appointing an Advocate-on-Record to file the petition in the Supreme Court as according to Rule 5, Order VII, Supreme Court Rules, 1980 the petition could only be filed by the party in person or through an Advocate-on-Record duly appointed by the party. This fact was not taken notice of at any stage. Even at the time of hearing of the petition (i,e, on 14-9-1988) this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and the presence of Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza (Advocate) was shown as 'In person' although he was not the petitioner and further there was no application on the file requesting permission to argue the case as a special attorney of the petitioners. Consquently leave to appeal was granted and the petitioners were directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs,5,000. Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza filed a challan in the Supreme Court as a proof that the security amount has been deposited. On scrutiny it was found that the security amount had been deposited in the National Bank of Pakistan, Okara whereas it should have been deposited in the State Bank of Pakistan as required under Order XIII, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. This challan was returned to him on 1810-1988. It was further noticed that Mirza Muhammad. Rashid Ahmad Raza who had filed the petition and also appeared before the Court at the time when leave to appeal was granted, was in fact not an Advocate of the Supreme Court and as such he could not plead or argue the case as special attorney of the petitioners before the Supreme Court. In the office note it was pointed out that the petition had not been properly filed and argued.
3. ' On 22-2-1990 a notice was issued to the petitioners/appellants informing them that the security amount which was to be deposited within 30 days from the grant of leave to appeal had not been deposited and that in case the said security amount had been deposited a proof to this effect may be submitted within a fortnight. A copy of this notice was also sent to the special attorney (Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza).
4. ' In reply to this notice Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza sent a letter stating that the security had been deposited in the State Bank of Pakistan but he did not submit any proof to show that the security had been deposited by him as required by the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
5. ' On 27-5-1991 the appeal which was fixed before the Court but was adjourned. It is, therefore, submitted that the special attorney Mirza Muhammad Rashid Raza (Advocate High Court) under the special power of attorney could only engage an Advocate-on-Record to file the petition in Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioners under Rule 5, Order VII, Supreme Court Rules, 1980 but could not file the petition 'in person' as petitions, appeals or other documents can only be presented in person by the party or by an Advocate-on-Record duly appointed by the party.
6. ' Under Order 15, Rule IV, Supreme Court Rules, 1980 no Advocate other than the Advocate-on- Record is entitled to act for a party in any proceedings in the Court. Under the proviso to section 23 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 the right of a person to appear, act and plead before the Court is subject to the Supreme Court Rules. And under section 28 of the Legal.
7. Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an Advocate of the Supreme Court if he fulfils such conditions as may be laid down in this behalf from time to time by the Rules of the Supreme Court. Under section 22 of the Act no person is entitled to practise the profession of law unless he is an Advocate. The word 'Advocate' as interpreted in Order I, Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1980 means a person entitled to appear and plead before the Supreme Court. Under the proviso of section 23 of the Act 'No person shall call himself or hold himself out as an Advocate of the Supreme Court until he has signed the Role of Advocates kept under the Rules of the Supreme Court and the right of a person to appear, act and plead before that Court shall be subject to the said Rules.
8. ' So far as Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza is concerned he could not file and appear before the Court under special power of attorney as the petition could only be filed by the petitioners in person or by an Advocate-on-Record who could be appointed by him under special power of attorney obtained from the petitioners.
9. ' He not being an Advocate of the Supreme Court could not appear and argue the case of the petitioners showing himself 'in person'. Moreover, if he was to appear as special attorney of the petitioners he should have first brought this fact to the kind notice of the Court and should not have got his attendance marked 'in person'.
10. ' So far as the security is concerned it has not been deposited in the State Bank of Pakistan under the Head of the Supreme Court. He deposited the security in the National Bank of Pakistan where the Supreme Court does not have any account. Therefore, there are two deficiencies in this appeal firstly the petition out of which the present appeal has arisen was not properly filed and argued, and secondly the security has not been deposited, as it has not been deposited in the State Bank of Pakistan as required by the Supreme Court Rules, 1980."
11. "There are two points in this case, namely:--
(i) Whether the security amount of Rs,5,000 was deposited within the prescribed period of 30 days; and
(ii) Whether Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza could file the petition and appear before the Court on behalf of the appellants on the basis of general power of attorney.
12. ' As regards the security amount, leave to appeal was granted in this case on 14th September, 1988 and the security amount of Rs,5,000 was required to be deposited within the period of one month from the date of grant of leave to appeal. No proof has so far been produced on behalf of the appellants for the deposit of the security amount in the State Bank of Pakistan under the relevant Head, but it appears from the Pass Book of the Treasury Officer, Lahore that the security amount was deposited on 29th November, 1988 i,e, 2-1/2 months after the date of grant of leave to appeal.
13. Under Rule 7, Order XIII, Supreme Court Rules, if the security amount is not deposited within a period of one month from the date of grant of leave to appeal, the leave stands rescinded unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Therefore, leave to appeal in this case stood rescinded and the appellants have taken no step to get the delay condoned by the Court.
14. ' On the second point, it is submitted that Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza could not himself file the petition for leave to appeal and appear before the Court on behalf of the petitioners/appellants on the basis of general power of attorney given to him by the petitioners/appellants. He should have engaged an Advocate-on-Record/Advocate to do so in this Court. It is provided in Rule 5, Order Vii of the Rules that 'all plaints, petitions, appeals and other documents shall be presented in person by the party or by an Advocate-on-Record duly appointed by the party'. The definition of the 'party' given in Order I of the Supreme Court Rules, does not include a person holding a special power of attorney.
15. ' Therefore, filing of the petition for leave to appeal by Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza was irregular as was his appearance before the Court on behalf of the petitioners/appellants. However, this irregularity may be condoned and at the appeal stage he may not be allowed to appear before the Court on behalf of the appellants. He may be required--
(1) to engage an Advocate-on-Record/Advocate of this Court to appear and plead before the Court on behalf of the appellants; and
(2) to move the Court for condonation of delay in depositing the security amount."
16. Notice was issued to the President of the High Court Bar Association as well as to the President of Advocates-on-Record Association to assist the Court on both the above issues. The question of security is one of discretion and affecting rights of a party. We considered it proper to condone the delay in depositing the same. The time for depositing the security amount is extended. Let it be deposited now. On the other question which is very serious, the President of the High Court Bar Association addressed elaborate arguments to support his plea that there cannot be any agent between the litigant and the Court in addition to those permitted under the Rules. He by making reference to Order IV, Rule 26, Order VII, Rule 5 and Order XVII, Rule 4 contended that a petition could be filed in this Court either by a litigant in person or by an Advocate-on-Record. Intermediary agents as the respondent acted, in this case for the appellants, When filing the petition for leave to appeal, is not visualised by the Rules.
17. ' Arguments were also advanced by Mr. Mehmeod A. Qureshi the President of the Advocates-on- Record Association. Both the learned counsel relied on M. Krishnammal v. T. Balasubramania Pillai, Power of Attorney Agent of M. Krishnammal AIR 1937 'Mad.
937. Mr. Asad Ullah Siddiqui, a Senior Advocate of this Court who was present in connection with another case also supported the learned Presidents of the respective Bars and cited Syed Muhammad Hussain v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. And another PLD 1980 SC 80 in support of their position. The plea of the respondent that although he himself is not a party in the case he innocently acted as agent for his father who is one of the appellants, was also adversely commented upon by all the learned counsel. He further stated that he had earlier also filed a petition on behalf of his father which was dismissed. He tried to make use of this additional factor as a support for his alleged impression that the Rules of the Supreme Court did not prohibit it.
18. According to both the Presidents of the Bar Associations the Rules did not make any distinction between litigant client who is related to a counsel and the one who is not related. Accordingly, all of them insisted that unless the appellants in this case want to appear in person and not through the agency of the respondent, if they want somebody else to act on their behalf he has to be an Advocate-on-Record of this Court who would either appear as Advocate of the Court which is permissible under 1980 Rules of this Court or he would engage another counsel.
19. 'When called upon to explain, the respondent candidly and frankly stated that he was not aware of the law on the point and that he has committed a mistake. He was profoundly sorry for it and thus he also apologized. The President of the Bar Association then made a statement that he personally knew the respondent and that he would recommend that a lenient view be taken otherwise he might lose his right to practice in the High Court also. He personally took the responsibility about the conduct of the respondent.
20. We while holding that the respondent illegally and improperly acted on behalf of the appellants in this case as an agent for filing the petition in this Court and then pursuing it without engaging an Advocate-on-Record even till today; however, on the recommendation of the President of the Bar Association, which is permissible for the Court to entertain in matters of discipline including those like the present one as well as those of contempt because all of them involve an element of assurance for future, take a lenient view of the matter. He is burdened with token cost of Rs,50 each to be paid to the two Presidents of the two Bar Associations. He and the appellants are further directed to immediately make arrangements for engaging an Advocate-on-Record if the appellants want to be represented through duly constituted agent before the Court. And further if it is intended to engage any other Advocate of this Court to argue the matter, the processing in that behalf should also be completed as soon as possible. The deposit for security has already been directed. This disposes of the notice against the respondent. The appeal shall now come up for hearing as already fixed. -