' MUHAMMAD ALAM (MEMBER).---On 25-11-2000, Saeed Anwar son of Siraj-ul-Haq filed a complaint in the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar against Gohar Rehman Khatak, Advocate and Tila Muhammad, Advocate, Peshawar alleging therein that the complaint had rented out the lower portion of his house situated in Street No,5, Canal Town Nasir Bagh Road, Peshawar, on monthly rent of Rs,5,500 commencing from October, 1998 to respondent No,l. It is further alleged that since June, 1999 respondent No,1 stopped the payment of electricity charges and when the WAPDA issued a notice of disconnection of energy respondent filed a civil suit in the name of Sirajul-Haq father of the complainant in the Civil Court, Peshawar. Siraj-ulHaq being a retired Sub-Divisional Officer of WAPDA was unnecessarily dragged into litigation. The arrears then accumulated was Rs,29,000. Similarly an amount of Rs,10,000 was outstanding against respondent No,1 due to the arrears of rent and damage to the house. Out of the same Rs, 15,000 was lying as security with the complainant and the remaining Rs,24,000 is still outstanding against the respondent No,1
2. Further averments in the complaint are that both of the respondents without the permission and consent of Siraj-ul-Haq father of the complainant, filed a civil suit in the Civil Court which act of the respondents is violative of the cannons of the conduct prescribed for the Advocates by the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. Thus, it was prayed, that stern legal action be taken against the respondents.
3. The Disciplinary Committee of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated proceedings against the respondents and they were directed to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 9-12-2000. On 9-12-2000 as is evident from the order sheet, the Naib Qasid had reported that the respondents have refused to receive the notice, thus, they were placed ex parte and after recording the ex parte evidence and taking into consideration the data available on the record, the learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee referred the case to this Tribunal for final adjudication vide reference dated 23-12-2000.
4. On receipt of the case file by this Tribunal notices were issued to the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 30-3-2001, on which date, due to request of the learned counsel for the parties the case was adjourned to 27-4-2001. It was, however, on 13-6-2001 the respondent submitted an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings on the grounds that the respondents had not been served in accordance with law. The complainant submitted the replication in which the contents of the application were hotly contested.
5. We have heard Miss Mussarat Hilali, Additional Advocate-General for the Government of N.- W.F.P., Mr. Atif Ali, Advocate for the complainant and Subhan Ullah, Advocate for the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
6. Perusal of the record would show that the ex parte proceedings were initiated by the learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee on the report of Naib-Qasid on 9-12-2000 but neither the report nor a copy of the peon book is available on the file. This is an established principle of law, that when a person is proceeded against ex parte, he can join the proceedings at any stage of the case. Reliance is placed on Aziz Ullah and others v. Arshad Hussain and others reported in PLD 1975 Lahore page 879.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the respondent had the knowledge of the proceedings, but the application having not been submitted within 30 days from the impugned ex parte proceedings, is time-barred in view of the provisions as contained in Article 164 of the Limitation Act.
8. Perusal of the record would show that the ex parte proceedings have been initiated against the respondents and which so far, has not been culminated into a final order and decree and the provisions of Article 164 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to the present case, rather the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act is applicable. Reliance is placed on Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan reported in PLD 1981 Supreme Court page 21(c) so the application submitted by the respondents is within time.
9. The conduct of the respondents, however, was also not above board as they unnecessarily sought adjournments, and at a very belated stage submitted the instant application but as the law insists on decisions on merits and moreso, a person should not be condemned unheard which is a well-known maxim of law duly incorporated in our judicial system. Thus, the application merits acceptance.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, we accept the application of the respondents dated 13-6-2001 and set aside the ex parte proceedings initiated against them by the learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council vide order-sheet dated 9-12-2000, on payment of cost of Rs,5,000 (Five thousand rupees) payable to the complainant by respondents in equal shares, on the day when they appear before the Disciplinary Committee of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar. Parties are directed to appear there on 13-4-2002. The learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee are directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.