1. ' KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order dated 23-4-1998 whereby a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh dismissed his application for the amendment of decree dated 27-11-1975.
2. ' The petitioner, presently a practising lawyer and Advocate-on-Record, used to be a member of Karachi Stock Exchange Ltd. Till November 1954 when he was removed from such membership. He filed Suit No.121 of 1958 challenging the action against him and claiming damages. The suit failed, thereupon he preferred an intra-Court appeal (L.P.A. No.32 of 1964) which was allowed in the following terms by judgment dated 14-1-1975:---- "In the result, the appeal is allowed and I set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The order of the Directors Exh.C/2 is declared to be illegal and ultra vires, as claimed in the plaint, and in the normal course this would have entitled the appellant to the further declaration that he was a member of the Stock Exchange, but as he is a practising Advocate. We observed that it would be misconduct for an Advocate to combine his professional duties with the pursuit of a business or trade. The appellant's only reply was that he wanted time to make up his mind in the event of his appeal being successful. The request is reasonable. I direct that if, within one month, or, such further time as may be given, the appellant informs the Court that he has ceased to be an Advocate, then, the decree shall include a declaration that he is a member of the Stock Exchange, otherwise it will only declare that the order Exh.C/2 is illegal and ultra vires. Finally, as to the monetary relief, for the reasons which I have given, I award Rs.28,000 as damages for defamation and this includes both general and special damages. I also award Rs.3,500 as damages for the illegal conversion of the appellant's movable property. I further direct that interest at 6% per annum shall be paid on these amounts from the date of the decree till the realization of the decretal amount, and the appellant is also awarded proportionate costs in both Courts."
3. ' In pursuance of the direction in the above judgment the petitioner submitted a statement dated 11-2-1975 and a further statement dated 27-3-1975. In view of the above statements the decree was prepared, the relevant portion of which is as follows:-- "It is ordered that since the appellant in compliance of the judgment dated 14-1-1975 has filed a written option dated 11-2-1975 to the effect that he prefers to practise as Advocate, that the appeal be allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and declaring the orders of the Director viz. Exh. C.2 illegal and ultra vires as clarified in para. 4 of the judgment of the Appellate Court and granting damages in the sum of Rs.28,000 (Rupees twenty-eight thousand only) for defamation and this includes both general and special damages and granting further damages in the sum of Rs.3,500 (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) for the illegal conversion of the appellant's movable property with interest at 6% per annum on the above decretal amount from the date of the decree till realization of the decretal amount with proportionate costs in both the Courts."
4. ' Against the above judgment in appeal the petitioner as also the respondent Karachi Stock Exchange Limited filed appeals in this Court being C.A. 12-K of 1975 and C.A. 106 of 1976 respectively.
5. Petitioner's appeal (C.A. 12-K of 1975) was dismissed by judgment dated 16-1-1990, while the appeal filed by the respondent (C.A. 106 of 1976) was not pressed and accordingly dismissed on the same date. The petitioner then filed a review petition in this Court seeking the review of the judgment dated 16-1-1990 in C.A. 12-K of 1975, which was dismissed on 12-4-1990. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. Read with section 152, C.P.C. In the High Court of Sindh for making necessary amendment/correction in the decree, which application was dismissed by the impugned order.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Sharif, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, argued that while preparing the decree the petitioner's statement/letter dated 11-2-1975 was not appreciated.
7. According to him, in this letter the petitioner had clearly opted to continue as a member of the Karachi Stock Exchange without doing business and at the same time to continue his legal practice.
8. ' The contention is without any substance, as rightly pointed out by the learned Judges, the petitioner was allowed only two options i.e. Either to continue as an Advocate or to remain member of the Karachi Stock Exchange, as is evident from the following observation in the judgment in L.P.A.
9. 32 of 1964:--- "I direct that if, within one month, or, such further time as may be given, the appellant informs the Court that he has ceased to be an Advocate, then, the decree shall include a declaration that he is a member of the Stock Exchange, otherwise it will only declare that the order Exh. C/2 is illegal and ultra vires."
10. ' As such the option was exercised by the petitioner through his statement dated 11-2-1975 informing the Court that he wanted to continue as a member of Karachi Bar Association and to practise as an Advocate. Having opted to continue to practise as an Advocate, no declaration with regard to his membership of the Stock Exchange was incorporated in the decree in terms of the judgment of the Court. It appears from the judgment of this Court in petitioner's appeal as also the order dismissing the review petition that petitioner's said statement dated 11-2-1975 as well as the contention now raised was considered, but the judgment of the High Court in L.P.A. 32 of 1964 was upheld. The matter having been finally disposed of by this Court, the fresh application filed in the High Court for the modification of and correction in the decree was without any merit and rightly dismissed by the learned Judges. This petition is, accordingly dismissed and leave is refused.