' The allegation against the respondent-Advocate is that initially he filed a suit on behalf of the complainant titled as Mst. Zohra Begum v. Begum Sirajul Haq and others (suit for permanent injunction) with regard to a property evidenced in registered sale-deed Nos.2297 and 2296 (measuring in all 2 Ks. 12 Ms.). The suit was filed in. March, 1997. As the vendor had sold out land in excess, of his ownership in the relevant Khasra to Commissioner praying therein that the mutation be entered in Revenue Record in terms of the afore-referred sale-deeds. The application was allowed on 15-5-1997 and as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the previous entries in favour of Pervaiz Khan; Rahim Dil Khan and Gazanfar Ali were substituted with that of the complainant Mst. Zohra Begum. It is alleged that the complainant gave a copy of the afore- referred Mutation Bearing No,6852 to the respondent for placing it in the afore-referred suit filed by complainant but instead of doing that, he filed a civil suit for declaration on behalf of afore- referred Pervaiz Khan and Rahim Dil Khan, wherein the vires of Mutation No,6852 were challenged and Mst. Zohra Begum was impleaded as defendant No,4.
2. The filing of the suit on behalf of complainant is not denied by the Respondent. He also does not deny having filed suit on behalf of Muhammad Pervaiz Khan and Rahim Dil Khan in which the complainant was impleaded as Defendant No,4 and vires of the afore-referred mutation were challenged. He also does not deny that the copy of the afore-referred mutation which he challenged by filing civil suit on behalf of Muhammad Pervaiz Khan etc. Was supplied to him by complainant Mst. Zohra Begum. But the defence of the respondent-Advocate is that he filed suit on behalf of Muhammad Pervaiz Khan etc. With regard to property which is different and is not the one which is subject-matter of the civil suit filed on behalf of Mst. Zohra Begum.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant, the respondent and have gone through the documents i,e, the afore-referred two civil suits, contents of Mutation No,6852, dated 23-5-1997 and have also given anxious considerations to the submissions made on both sides.
4. We take note of para. 4 of the reply submitted by respondent before this Tribunal wherein the respondent has stated as under:-- "Para. No,4 denied to the extent that the complainant did not provide the copy of Mutation No,6852, dated 23-5-1997 at the time of filing written reply to the suit titled 'Begum Sirajul Haq v. Mst. Zohra Begum' Her attorney, however, showed me the copy, thereafter probably in July, 1998 and after reading the contents I expressed my annoyance and indignation to her because that document had injured the rights and interest of the third party who was no-where concerned with the suit and suit property."
5. The respondent filed suit for declaration challenging the afore-referred mutation in December, 1997 notwithstanding the fact that the suit filed by him on behalf of Mst. Zohra Begum was still pending decision. The mutation is with regard to the same property and nothing has been shown by respondent to indicate that this was relatable to property other than the property which is subject-matter of the suit filed by him. This conduct of the respondent-Advocate does fall within the mischief of section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973 read with Rule 145 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules 1976. The reference of the respondent Advocates to Rule 156 of the afore-referred Rules is of no avail to him as he could not be a judge of his own cause. The charge being serious, we are persuaded to suspend his licence for a period of six months from today. Disposed of.