' Liaqat Ali complainant filed a complaint in the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar alleging therein, that the respondent Arshad Mehmood Lodhi, Advocate, Nowshera was engaged as counsel by him on 25-8-1992, as he was attacked by some of his relative and he, in order to save his life, came to Risalpur Cantt.; where his wife is a Headmistress in a school who happened to be a. Colleague of the respondent's wife, thus the complainant approached the respondent for legal help and redress of his grievances. The complainant further alleged, that according to the respondent as the assailants belonged to Faisalabad and that the attack at the life of the complainant was made at Rawalpindi so, he has to file two complaints one at Rawalpindi and the other at Faisalabad, for which he demanded Rs,10,300 as his professional fee and the complainant paid the same. The respondent did not file any complaint, hence on complainant's protest, the respondent returned Rs,5,000 while the balance of Rs,5,300 has been withheld by him. As the respondent, has committed gross negligence in performance of duties and professional misconduct as envisaged by the provisions of Legal Practitioners and ,Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder, hence the instant complaint.
2. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar initiated proceedings against the respondent where he submitted his written statement on 20-9-1994, wherein the allegations as contained in the complaint were denied. However, the respondent admitted that the complainant and his wife had come to ham and under their instructions he visited the Agriculture Colony at Rawalpindi and came to know that the complainant had contracted a secret marriage at Faisalabad and that lady had come to the complainant's House at Rawalpindi and the story of attack as narrated to him by the complainant was a concocted one. The respondent, however, admitted the fixation and payment of professional fee of Rs,10,300 but at the same time averred that he had visited Rawalpindi, met some officials under the instructions of the complainant and his first wife who is Headmistress in the F.G. Sappers High School, Resalpur Cantt., drafted divorce deed for the complainant and sent the same through registered A.D. To the wife of the complainant at Rawalpindi and thus, he had performed his professional duties. However, on demand, the respondent returned Rs,5,000 as a matter of grace to the complainant, though he was not entitled to any concession or return of fee and averred that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council after recording of evidence pro and contra as the parties wished to produce, sent the case to this Tribunal for final adjudication.
4. We have heard Mr. Tahir Hussain Lughmani, Assistant Advocate-General, Government of N.- W.F.P. And the petitioner. The respondent was absent in spite of service of notice and was thus, placed ex parte. In proof of the allegations, the complainant appeared as his own witness, while the respondent got his statement recorded before the Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council and closed his evidence.
5. Perusal of.The record and evidence available on file make it clear that the version as given by the complainant to the respondent regarding attack on him and his running away from Rawalpindi to Risalpur Cantt. Was incorrect. The dispute was matrimonial one between the complainant and his third wife namely Shaila Rashid. The factum of third marriage has been admitted by the complainant in his statement before the Disciplinary Committee, relevant portion of his statement is as under:-- "Anwary Begum is my first wife, I have got two other wives, their names are Shaista Parveen and Shaila Rashid."
' The above statement of the complainant would show that he had three wives and the strained relations in such like cases are inevitable.
6. On the other hand the respondent, according to his version had gone to Rawalpindi where he met some officials and on return drafted a divorce deed and sent the same through registered post to the complainant's third wife. The conduct and credentials of the petitioner are also not above board, as he had concealed the material facts from the respondent while engaging him for professional duties, thus the allegation of professional misconduct has not been proved against the respondent.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case, narrated above we do not find the respondent guilty of professional misconduct. However, before parting with this judgment, we would like to observe that the respondent too, had acted unlike an Advocate in the matter and had over-skipped his duties as an advocate, in so far as his going to Rawalpindi and making enquiries are concerned. An Advocate enjoys a high position in the society and is expected to observe high standards and ethics of professional norms both inside as well as outside the Court. Thus, while dismissing the instant complaint we warn the respondent to be careful in future in maintaining the dignity and honour of the legal profession and to discharge his duties in a manner as required by the Code of Conduct of the Advocates. Parties are left to bear their own costs.