' MUHAMMAD ALAM (MEMBER).---On 6-5-2000 Muhammad Irshad son of Hussain Bakhsh complainant, tiled a complaint against Muhammad Saddique Haider Qureshi, Advocate respondent in Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar alleging therein, that the complainant contracted marriage with one Mst. Fauzia Yasmin daughter of Muhammad Hussain resident of Hassan Garhi, Pajjagi Road, Peshawar in the year 1997 and the Rukhsati between the spouses also took place. It is further alleged that the complainant went to USA soon after the marriage and promised that he will arrange for the visa of Mst. Fauzia Yasmin. In spite of the best efforts of the complainant visa could not be arranged for her and thus, it resulted in the strained relation between the complainant and his wife Mst. Fauzia Yasmin.
2. Further averments in the complaint are that Mst. Fauzia Yasmin instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of the prompt dower and maintenance etc. In the Family Court at Peshawar in which Mst. Fauzia Yasmin was represented by the respondent as counsel. It is further alleged that the respondent Advocate misled the Family Court and obtained a prohibitory order in the shape of injunction restraining the complainant not to leave the country and the respondent gave wide publicity to this order by sending the same to the Embassy of USA at Islamabad as well as to the Directors FIA, Islamabad and Peshawar, requesting therein, to place the name of the complainant in the exit control list and also levelled in the said applications baseless and uncalled for allegations, in order to lower down the complainant in the estimations of the general public and his relatives so it was prayed that as the respondent has violated the ethics and cannons of professional conduct as prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and rules, so it was prayed that legal action be taken against the respondent.
3. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated proceedings against the respondent. The learned members of the Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council formulated a question vide order-sheet, dated 27-5-2000 as to whether on the allegations contained in the complaint any case of misconduct has been made out against the respondent or not? On this aspect of the case, both the parties submitted written arguments on the point of maintainability of the instant complaint and the learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee vide reference dated 17-3-2001 referred the case to this Tribunal for final adjudication.
4. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Special Attorney for the complainant relied on the written arguments submitted while we have heard Miss Mussarat Hilali, Additional Advocate-General for the Government of N.-W.F.P. And Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate for the respondent.
5. The Special Attorney for the complainant has mainly reiterated the same stance as taken by him in his complaint and in his written arguments submitted to the learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee, it was, however, elaborated by the complainant's Attorney, that the issuance of prohibitory order was violative of the provisions contained in the West Pakistan Family Courts Act., 1964 and also the respondent has acted beyond his powers to issue a notice to the Embassy of USA and to the Directors FIA, Islamabad and Peshawar. It was submitted that the act of the respondent was in violation of the cannon of conduct prescribed by the Act and Rules (ibid). So it was submitted that as respondent has committed a gross professional misconduct, is liable to be removed from the legal profession. The same arguments were adopted by the learned Additional Advocate-General.
6. Mr. Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that whether the injunction order passed by the Family Court was in consonance with the provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 or not, was a question beyond the jurisdiction of this tribunal, to be dilated upon. He submitted that a right of appeal under section 14 of the same Act was available to the complainant which he has not availed and thus, the question of legality or otherwise of the injunction order passed by the learned Family Court, Peshawar cannot be made the subject-matter of the present proceedings. It was next contended that an Advocate being the Officer of the Court was well within his right to convey the order of the Family Court to the Embassy of USA and Directors FIA, Islamabad and Peshawar under the instructions of Mst. Fauzia Yamin, his client. Reliance in this respect was placed on Mst. Hafiza Begum v. Abdul Sattar, Advocate reported in 2001 PLR page 530 and Major Muhammad Arif v. Sardar Bahadur and others reported in 1998 CLC page 1875 and submitted that as the respondent has not committed any professional misconduct the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have given our anxious considerations to the facts and circumstances of this case. This is on the record that Mst. Fauzia Yasmin had instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage and dower etc. In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar empowered as Family Court which suit was subsequently transferred to Miss Kalsoom Azam, Civil Judge, Peshawar. This is also an admitted fact that the learned Family Court had passed a prohibitory order in favour of Mst. Fauzia Yasmin and against Muhammad Irshad complainant not to leave the country till the decision of the suit.
This injunction order was communicated to the Embassy of USA and Directors FIA, Islamabad and Peshawar by the respondent under the instructions of his client Mst. Fauzia Yasmin. The respondent has done nothing but only to communicate the order passed by the learned Family Court. The respondent being an Officer of the Court was well within his right to send a notice and application on behalf of and under the instructions of his client. The only embargo which has been placed on the acts of an Advocate, under rule 173 of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules 1976, was that an Advocate cannot communicate with nor could appear before a Public Officer without first disclosing his identity as an Advocate.
8. In the case in hand the respondent had duly disclosed his identify as an Advocate. The notice was on his letter head pad and it was specifically mentioned that the communication of the order of the Family Court to the concerned Officers was an act purely under the instructions of his client Mst. Fauzia Yasmin. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent cover on all fours the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Regarding the question as to whether the prohibitory order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court was legal or not, is a question which is outside the domain of this Tribunal. As a right of appeal was available to the complainant under the provisions of section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and as no appeal has been filed, that order has attained finality and the vires of the same cannot be agitated before this Tribunal.
10. In view of the facts and legal position narrated above, we have come to the conclusion that no case of professional misconduct has been made out against the respondent and the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Complaint dismissed.