1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to challenge the order of the High Court by which his application under Articles 7 and 8 of Chapter 4 of Canon of Professional Conduct and Etiquettes framed by the Pakistan Bar Council filed against respondent No,3 has been dismissed.
2. The application was filed by the petitioner when respondent No,3 appeared as an Advocate on behalf of the convicts Habibur Rehman and Zabit Khan in criminal appeal who alongwith other three others were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge (West) Karachi, under section 302/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and line of Rs,50,000 each. The other co- accused convicted by the Court are represented by other Advocates. The main grievance of the petitioner was that on 7-8-1987 respondent No,3 was an Additional Judge of the High Court and had heard the bail application of accused Rustam Khan and Zabit Khan. On conviction Zabit Khan filed an appeal through respondent No,3 who is no more a Judge and is practising advocate of the High Court. According to the petitioner, respondent No,3 is debarred under Articles 7 and 8 referred above, from defending Zabit Khan and Habibur Rehman whose bail application was decided by him as a Judge. From the statement of facts it seems that the bail application of Zabit Khan was dismissed by respondent No,3. We had issued notice to respondent No,3 who is present in Court and is represented by Mr. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme. Respondent No,3 stated that Zabit Khan is being represented by another advocate and he would not represent him.
2. The learned Judges of the High Court while rejecting the application observed as follows:-- 'Bail application was rejected by respondent No,3 and it was held that prosecution could not be blamed for the delay in trial of the case. Be that as it may respondent No,3 is now Advocate for only accused/appellant/convict Habibur Rehman, whose bail application was never heard by him nor upon the merits of whose case he had previously acted in a judicial capacity. Having been supreseded by Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate, for appellant Zabit Khan respondent No,3 is not disqualified to represent appellant Habibur Rehman in this appeal. Even otherwise this Court cannot hold that respondent No,3 is barred from representing the appellants, or anyone of them, upon the merits of whose case respondent No,3 previously may have acted in a judicial capacity.
3. Even otherwise the Bar Council was the competent forum and not this Court in such matters to enforce its decision for upholding the Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette. The application before this Court being incompetent and without merit is rejected."
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the earlier part of the observation and not the conclusion reached by the Court. In view of the concluding and operative part of the order quoted above we are of the opinion that the earlier part of the order objected to by the appellant seems to be redundant. While dismissing the petition we clarify that the parties will be free to enforce remedy provided to them under law and observation made in the impugned order will not prejudice any party.