DECISION Notice was issued to Mr. Nizam the opposite-party for contempt of Court for using language discourteous to the Court which is not the traditional language. In application for review of the Order passed by the learned Labour Court, Mr. Nizam Ahmed, Advocate in his written arguments said the following: "The said orders are illegal and unjust. The said orders are erroneous and untenable under law." Mr. Nizam has appeared in response to notice issued to him and said he has not been contemptuous to the Court. The reference he has made isL only about the orders passed by the leamed Court, ln this connection he has1 relied on a Judgment of the Federal Court reported as M. A. Naqvi v. The Crown (l), Muhammad Munir, C. J., observed as under: "Counsel is entitled to raise any point of law that he may consider necessary for the purpose of the case in which he is engaged, and if the objectionable ground for revision in the present case was based on the appellant's own view of the law, however, untenable that view may be, he could not be found guilty of contempt, and it does not make the slightest difference that tbe appellant did not in that ground state that the accused had been questioned at an earlier stage of the proceedipgs. If the learned Judges thought that the appellant had done something which counsel should not do, they could consider the question of taking disciplinary action against him, but it is impossible for us to endorse the proposition that is implicit in the judgment from which this appeal has been brought that any ground taken by counsel which is eventually repelled because it is based on an incomplete (1) PLD 1955 FC 11 statement of facts or an erroneous view of the law amounts to a contempt of Court. As already pointed out, contempt means anything done or said that is calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice, and it cannot possibly be laid down that unsustainable ground urged for the Court's interference in revision must be held to amount to an obstruction to or interference with the due course of justice. It is the duty of counsel to be careful and accurate in the statements of facts in order to assist the Court and not to do anything to deceive or overreach it but that does not mean that he is under an obligation to state the facts or the legal position favourable to his opponent and that an omission to discharge that supposed obligation would amount to contempt."
2. In view of the law laid down by the Federal Court I would discharge the contempt of Court notice.