' S. AHMED SARWANA, J.---The petitioner, who is the owner of the building situated on Plot No, SB-8, Blocks 4 and 5, Al-Hilal Cooperative Housing Society, KDA Scheme No, 7 Karachi, has filed this petition, inter alia against KBCA, Mr. Altaf and Irfan Aziz (respondents Nos. 9 and 10), the owners of Plot No, 5, Al-Hilal Cooperative Housing Society, seeking an order from this Court to direct respondents Nos. 9 and 10 to stop construction on the above referred Plot in contravention of the approved Building Plan and in violation of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 and Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations framed thereunder and direct KBCA to perform their statutory obligation and if required to demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction raised on the plot. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent and on receipt of notice, KBCA admitted that the construction of the said building was unauthorized and in violation of the relevant law as the building was approved for ground plus two floors whereas the builder had constructed ground plus five floors and that the Authority was taking appropriate action against the unauthorized construction in accordance with law. Mr. Nasir Abbas Rizvi, Advocate filed several applications under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. On behalf of 10 intervenors alleging to be the occupants and owners of the flats situated on 3rd to 5th floors in the above referred building raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner was a fictitious person and that the petition had been filed to blackmail and harass the occupants and the builder. On 3-12-1999, the Court directed the learned counsel to produce the petitioner in person alongwith the alleged constituted Attorney in Court so that the identity of the petitioner may be established. This was not complied with and on 1-3-2000 the Court gave another opportunity to the petitioner's counsel and instead of producing the petitioner and her attorney in person directed him to submit/file within four weeks an authenticated affidavit of the petitioner duly countersigned by the Consulate General of Pakistan in USA as the latter was reported to be in that country. Mr. Attaullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not produce the required certificate within the specified time and to accommodate the petitioner further time was given to him to comply with this Court's order but he has not so far produced any document pursuant to this Court's order, dated 1-3-2000. Today, he submitted that the petitioner is untraceable and her Attorney has not been able to contact her during the last 14 months. The Attorney who is said to be in Pakistan has also not appeared in Court on any day when the petition was listed for hearing in Court.
2. From the statement made by Mr. Khan today, the objection of Mr. Rizvi appears to be correct that the petitioner is a fictitious person because if it were not so the Attorney would have been able to contact his alleged principal or at least the Attorney would have appeared personally to explain the position. It is established law that relief under Article 199 of the Constitution is a discretionary relief and the person seeking such relief must come with clean hands and he must be an identifiable living person. In view of the non-appearance of the petitioner or his Attorney in person or production of an authenticated Affidavit from the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court, it is apparent that this petition is patently mala fide. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
The 20 Interlocutory Applications pending in the petition have, accordingly, become infructuous &id are disposed of as such.
3. The respondents and Intervenors Claim costs from the petitioner under section 35-A, C.P.C. As they have been unnecessarily harassed by the petitioner's improper conduct in filing a vexatious petition and request that costs against the counsel personally may also be awarded as he failed to act prudently as required of an Advocate and an officer of this Court which principle of conduct was also restated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muhammad Siddiq v. Ruqaya Khanum PLD 2001 Karachi 60. In the said case, this Court1 had summarized the duties of an Advocate in a Muslim Society, inter alia, in the following words: "(i) An Advocate is an Officer of the Court and is duty-bound to assist the Court in the administration of justice.
(ii) He must, before taking up any matter on behalf of a client, ensure that the claim or defence is based upon truth, honesty and propriety. In case he finds that it is not so, he must decline to take up the matter on behalf of the client.
(iii) He must disclose all material facts (evidence) and law including legal precedents to the Court.
(iv) He must not knowingly conceal any material fact or legal authority from the Court and must bring to the notice of the Court all precedents relating to the case in issue and specially the adverse precedent or authority of a superior Court that governs the particular case, even if it be against the interest of his client. He may, however, express his opinion on the precedent and argue that the principle laid down in the cited precedent is either distinguishable or not applicable in the circumstances of his case. His duty to the Court would increase doubly if the adverse authority has not been cited or has been overlooked by the opposing counsel."
4. We may point out here that earlier in the case of Haji Haroon Mandrah and another v. Abdul Rahim and others C.P.No, D-1021 of 1994 by order, dated 1-3-2001, we had imposed costs against the counsel personally as he had not acted prudently in filing several Interlocutory Applications before this Court which were found to be mala fide and frivolous. Following the principle laid down in the cases of Haji Haroon Mandrah (ibid) and Muhammad Siddiq (supra), compensatory costs in the present case can also be imposed on Mr. Attaullah Khan personally on account of his imprudent conduct, however, taking a lenient view, we pardon him this time but put him on notice to be careful in future and, before filing any petition or application in Court, make proper inquiries to ensure that the person filing the petition or the application is a genuine one and the petition or the application filed is bona fide and is based upon true facts and supported by law so that when the matter proceeds in Court it may be seen and said that he has acted prudently and honestly and has not been guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty in the administration of justice as a responsible officer of the Court. We hope that this due diligence exercise shall be undertaken and followed by all Advocates of this Court so that the general public does not refer to the members of the respected legal profession as sharks and persons of no morals and scruples whose only goal is to win their clients' case at all costs whether just or unjust.
5. Nevertheless, the request of the Opposing Counsel for costs appears to be reasonable.
Accordingly, the petitioner's Attorney is directed to pay costs of Rs,500 to each of the contesting respondents and the intervenors in respect of the 20 interlocutory applications filed by them. The learned counsel for the respondents and the Interveners present state that the costs instead of being paid to them may be deposited in the High Court Bar Library. Ordered accordingly. The Nazir shall submit his report of the deposit in the first week of September, 2001 before a Bench of which at least one of us is a member.
6. On 2-8-1999 and 29-11-2000 KBCA was directed to take action against the unauthorized construction and the officers of KBCA without whose connivance this unauthorized construction could not have taken place and submit a compliance report by the first week of March, 2001. In the compliance report submitted on 23-5-2001, KBCA has given the details of the inquiry it is conducting and the action it is taking in respect of the unauthorized construction on the plot in question pursuant to the order of this Court and has requested for further time to complete their exercise. The request is granted and KBCA is allowed three month's time from today to complete their inquiry and proceedings in respect of the unauthorized construction on the plot in question.
For removal of doubt expressed by Mr. Jafri, it is clarified that the KBCA is free to take action against all violations of building laws in accordance with the relevant law. It may, however, be observed that the action would be subject to any order passed in Suits Nos.1328 of 1999 and 1512 of 1999 which have allegedly been filed by the Interveners in this Court.
' Office is directed to place KBCA's Compliance Report before a Bench of which at least one of us is a member.