' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, C.J.---The above titled four appeals have been filed by Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri, an advocate from Pakistan, who has been appearing in the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir as well as in this Court since May, 1990. In these appeals when he submitted concise statements, Ch. Muhammad Afzal, the learned counsel for the respondents, in para. No,5 of his concise statements raised a preliminary objection in all the appeals which reads as follows:-- "That the learned counsel, Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri, is appearing on the basis of invalid practising licence and has filed the concise statement on behalf of appellants 1 and 2 which is incompetent.
He is not State Subject and does not fulfil the Other statutory requirements entitling him for grant of licence to practice either before this Honourable Court or any other Court in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The representation on behalf of appellants 1 and 2 and submission of concise statement before this Honourable Court on their behalf is therefore, improper and without any legal effect."
2. In continuation of the aforesaid objection Ch. Muhammad Afzal, the learned counsel for the respondents, has moved a separate application under section 42-A of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as the Constitution) read with Order XLIII, rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 (hereinafter to be referred as the Supreme Court Rules) for placing on record certain documents. In para. No,3 of the application the documents proposed to be produced are as follows:--
(I) Application dated 15-1-1990 submitted by Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri seeking permission for the conduct of specified cases in the Supreme Court of AJ&K Annexure R/1.
(2) Order dated 20-1-1990 by Assistant Registrar Annexure R/2.
(3) Order dated 20-1-1990 by Deputy Registrar Annexure R/3.
(4) Order dated 7-5-1990 by Assistant Registrar Annexure R/4.
(5) Order dated 10-5-1990 by Deputy Registrar Annexure R/5.
(6) Report dated 14-5-1990 by Superintendent Supreme Court Annexure R/6.
(7) Report by Superintendent Supreme Court dated 19-5-1990 Annexure R/7.
(8) Undertaking dated 22-5-1990 by Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri, Advocate, Annexure R/8.
(9) Certificate of Enrolment of advocate by Supreme Court of AJ&K dated 19-5-1990, Annexure R/9.
'According to the learned counsel for the respondents as the aforesaid documents were not in his possession, so the same could not be filed at the time when the concise statements were filed. It was requested that these documents may be allowed to be placed on record. So by accepting the request of the learned counsel for the respondents, the aforesaid documents were allowed to be placed on record.
3. Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri, the learned counsel for the appellants, was provided with the opportunity to reply the averments made in the concise statements as well as in the application. In his objections, he stated that the application is malicious, defamatory and embarrassing. The learned counsel stated that the allegation that "appellant's counsel does not have any licence of Supreme Court" stands negated by the fact that the respondents themselves placed on record the copy of licence issued by this Court in favour of appellant's counsel. The learned counsel in his objections stated that the allegation that counsel for appellants is a non-State. Subject and hence cannot hold valid legal licence to practise in Azad Jammu and Kashmir is preposterous which does not merit any comment. The learned counsel for the appellants averred in his objections that the Assistant Registrar of this Court on his application for enrolment as an Advocate of Supreme Court on 20-1-1990 asked him for filing of Enrolment Certificate of the High Court of Pakistan or a certificate to the effect that he is a fit person to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court.
Accordingly the following documents were submitted by Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri alongwith his objections:--
(a) Certified copy of certificate issued by Punjab Bar Council dated 16-1-1990 Annexure DA/3, wherein it has been mentioned that Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri has been admitted as an Advocate of the High Court on 20-9-1966.
(b) Certified copy of Certificate issued by Pakistan Bar Council Annexure DA/1 showing that Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri, son of Mian Mehmood Ali Kasuri, resident of 4-Fane Road, Lahore, being an Advocate, who satisfies all the conditions laid down by Rules framed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, has on this the 3rd day of June, 1982 been admitted and enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
(c) Certified copy of Certificate issued by Secretary, Pakistan Bar Council dated 10th April, 1990, Annexure DA/2, stating therein that Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri, resident of 4-Fane Road, Lahore, was enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 3-6-1982 by Pakistan Bar Council. His name is still borne on the Roll of Advocacy maintained by this Council.
' On 24-6-2003 before this Court Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri in rebuttal of evidence of respondents, who raised the preliminary objection, got his statement recorded stating therein that except the documents Annexures DA/1, DA/2 and DA/3, he does not want to produce any other further evidence. While arguing his case, Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri stated that his undertaking form which is required under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, the Indemnity Bond under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules and finally the licence of advocacy issued by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dated 19-5-1990 are already on the file and produced by the counsel for the respondents himself as Annexures R/8, R/7 and R/9.
4. Ch. Muhammad Afzal, the learned counsel for the respondents, while relying upon his preliminary objection referred to the document Annexure R/2 produced by him wherein the Assistant Registrar informed Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri that he has enclosed the photostat copy of Certificate issued by the Punjab Bar Council, Lahore. The Assistant Registrar stated in the order that Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri has also filed undertaking and Indemnity Bond as required under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules. It was also stated that the photostat copies are not attested copies. At the end of the order, it was demanded by the Assistant Registrar that for enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court, the Advocate should have filed the Enrolment Certificate of the High Court of Pakistan or a certificate to the effect that he is a fit person to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court. He was directed to file these documents. While referring to Annexure. R/4, the learned counsel submitted that the Assistant Registrar of this Court observed that Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri has not filed the Certificate of Enrolment as an Advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan or a certificate to the effect that he is a fit person to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme aiurt. Again on 10-5-1990 vide Annexure R/5, the Deputy Registrar observed that Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri has not filed the requisite documents and asked that the application alongwith the documents filed by him be transmitted to Muzaffarabad for further action. Vide Annexure R/6 the Superintendent of the Office submitted a report to the Registrar that on 20-1-1990 Mr. Umar Mehmood. Kasuri has submitted an application for enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the Branch Registry, Mirpur. He has also filed a photostat copy of a certificate issued by the Punjab Bar Council Lahore which shows that he is enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court and also filed an undertaking as well as an Indemnity Bond as required under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules. Vide Annexure R/7 the Superintendent of the Office reported that Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri has filed the following documents alongwith his application:--
(1) Certificate dated 16-1-1990 issued by the Punjab Bar Council.
(2) Certificate dated 10-4-1990 issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
(3) Certificate dated 3-6-1982 issued by the Pakistan Bar Council.
(4) Certificate dated 9-5-1990 issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
(5) Undertaking under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules.
(6) Indemnity Bond under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules.
'The aforesaid report was submitted by the Superintendent on 19-5-1990 to the Registrar of this Court; thereafter vide Annexure R/8 Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri filed an undertaking as required under the Supreme Court Rules. Vide Annexure R/9, a certificate of Enrolment of Advocate of Supreme Cowl of Azad Jammu and Kashmir was issued in favour of Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri on 19th day cf May, 1990, by the Registrar of this Court.
5. While arguing the case, Ch. Mulammad Afzal, the learned counsel for respondents, submitted that under the Supreme Court Rules all the conditions mentioned in Order IV, rule 4, sub-rule (1), clauses (a) to (c) and sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of Order IV are necessarily to be fulfilled by a person desirous of getting licence of advocacy of Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The learned counsel contended that under Order IV, rule 4, sub-rule (1), clause (a) of the Supreme Court Rules it is a necessary requirement that a person to become an Advocate of Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir must have been for not less than five years enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court. Similarly unless under Order IV, rule 4, sub-rule (1), clause (b) he has been granted a certificate in a duly authenticated form by the Chief Justice and Judge of the High Court that he is a fit and proper person to appear and plead as an Advocate before the Supreme Court, he shall not be qualified for being enrolled as an Advocate of this Court. The learned counsel contended that under Order I, rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, the High Court has been defined in a following manner:-- "High Court means the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir."
' Therefore, while interpreting the provisions of Order IV, rule 4, sub-rule (1), clauses (a) and (b) of the Supreme Court Rules, wherever the word 'High Court' occurs, it only refers to the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not any other High Court. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the counsel for the appellants not being the Advocate of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is not eligible to get the licence of advocacy of Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, as such all the appeals filed in his capacity as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir are incompetent and the same are not instituted validly.
6. While rebutting the arguments of Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that under Order IV, rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules the Chief Justice and the Judge have vast powers to grant licence to any person who is not qualified to be enrolled under Order IV, Rules 1 to 4, if in their judgment he is qualified by knowledge, ability and experience to be enrolled as an Advocate. The learned counsel submitted that Order IV, rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules reads as follows:-- "The Chief Justice and the Judge may grant the enrolment of person, not qualified as aforementioned, if in their judgment he is qualified by knowledge, ability and experience to be enrolled as an Advocate."
' This shows beyond any manner of doubt that rule 5 of Order IV controls the provisions of Order IV, rules 1 to 4. The learned counsel further submitted that in 1995 an enacunent in the shape of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1995, was introduced in Azad Jammu and Kashmir under which only a State Subject alongwith other qualifications could be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir but safeguard has been provided for the Advocates who have already been enrolled before the commencement of the aforesaid Act. In this regard he referred to section 21 of the said Act. The learned counsel also pointed out that section 24 of the AJ&K Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1995 provides that Advocates of other country are allowed to practise in the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir provided the Advocates from Azad Jammu and Kashmir are permitted to practise law in that country. This shows that even in the latest Legal Practitioners Act, the arrangements had been made for allowing the Advocates of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to practise in Pakistan and the Advocates of Pakistan to practise in Azad Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of reciprocity.
7. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. It is no doubt correct thai under Order IV, rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules the following necessary requirements have been mentioned:-- "4. (1) A person shall not be qualified for being enrolled as an Advocate unless he---
(a) has been for not less than 5 years enrolled as an Advocate in High Court;
(b) has been granted a certificate in a duly authenticated form by the Chief Justice and Judge of the High Court that he is a fit and proper person to appear and plead as an Advocate before the Supreme Court; and
(c) signs the Roll of Advocates maintained for the purpose."
' On the basis of aforementioned provisions of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, Ch. Muhammad Afzal, the learned counsel for the respondents, contended that for enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir it is the condition precedent that a person must have not less than five years been enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court. The High Court, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, under Order I, rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules has been defined as the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. So, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, a person who does not hold a licence of advocacy of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and has not less than five years been enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court, cannot be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Under section 43 of the Constitution, the High Court has been defined as follows:-- "High Court.---There shall be a High Court for Azad Jammu and Kashmir, hereinafter called the High Court, which shall consist of a Chief Justice and such number of other Judges as may be prescribed by an Act of the Assembly."
'The foresaid provision of law, in our view clearly refers to the composition of the High Court and the same does not deal with the definition of the High Court. The definition has been given in Order I, rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, as already stated.
8. The next contention of Ch. Muhammad Afzal, the learned counsel for the respondents, is that section 57 of the Constitution states that "the provisions of this Act shall override and have effect notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force". Thus, in view of submissions made by Ch. Muhammad Afzal, the provisions of Constitution shall prevail over the provisions of any other legislation. We have no quarrel with the aforesaid provision of the Constitution but the provisions of the Constitution or any statute are to be read together and not in isolation of each other and the best way of construction of provisions of statute are that the same should be interpreted in a harmonious way.
' In a case reported as Institution-of Engineers, Pakistan Engineering Centre v. Pakistan Engineering Council and another 1996 CLC 129 it was observed as follows:-- "Statute must be read as a whole and one provision contained therein could not be interpreted in isolation of the other."
' In a case reported as Fauji Sugar Mills v. Province of the Punjab and others 1996 CLC 592 it was observed as follows:-- "Various provisions of a section/ statute must be interpreted harmoniously to each other and one provision could not be interpreted in such a manner that the others become nugatory."
' In a case reported as Aziz-urRehman v. Presiding Officer, Local Council Elections and others 1993 SCR 177 it was laid down as follows:-- "If an act is required to be performed according to the prescribed manner by law or rule, it should be performed according to the prescribed manner alone or not at all."
' In a case reported as Federation of Pakistan v. Mallick Muhammad Miskeen and others PLD 1995 SC (AJ&K) 1 it has been observed as follows:-- "It is well-settled law that while interpreting the words and phrases employed in a statutory provision they should be given their natural meanings; nothing should be added or subtracted from a provision and a law should be interpreted as it is and not as it should be."
' In a case reported as Ch. Sadiq Ali (Retd. Assistant Engineer) v. Chief Secretary, AJ&K and another PLD 1996 SC (AJ&K) 29 = 1996 PLC (C.S.) 337 it was held as follows:-- "If two interpretations are possible, Courts do not accept a construction which renders a legislation futile. In the case in hand two interpretations are possible and we adopt the interpretation which does not render the law under consideration nugatory. Therefore, the words 'purpose of deciding any appeal' have to be liberally construed so that the power continues till the order passed by the Service Tribunal has been implemented."
' In a case reported as Raja Muhammad Sohrab v. AJ&K Government and 6 others 2001 SCR 481 it was observed as follows:-- "That it is a settled principle of law that in order to interpret the provisions of a statute or rules, the Courts are not expected to add or subtract anything in the relevant provisions."
' In another case reported as Syed Javed Hussain Shah v. Azad Government and others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 996 it was observed as follows:-- "Courts have to enforce law as it is. Courts cannot add or subtract anything from the relevant law.
There is no statute under which the Selection Committee was required to grant additional marks being good player of Football, Hockey, Badminton, Table Tennis and Cricket."
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that an Advocate from Supreme Court of Pakistan cannot appear and practise law in the Courts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, in our considered view, is devoid of any legal force and has no footing to stand upon. We need not refer to the Legal Practitioners Rules, 1957 and the Legal Practitioners Acts even before 1957 or Bar Councils Act, 1995 as they have no application in the instant case. In the instant case the relevant licence was issued in 1990, therefore, the law applicable at that time was provided in the Supreme Court Rules which we have already referred. Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri applied for this enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1990 when the Constitution was in the field. So obviously the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules made thereunder, as contended by Ch. Muhammad Afzal, the learned counsel for the respondents, shall prevail upon the subordinate legislation.
10. The explanation of subsections (5) (a) and (b) of section 42 of the Constitution reads as follows:--- "Explanation.---In this subsection, High Court includes:---
(a) The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and a High Court or an equivalent Court that existed in Azad Jammu and Kashmir before the fourteenth day of August, 1947; and
(b) A High Court in Pakistan including a High Court that existed in Pakistan at any time before the fourteenth day of August, 1973."
' So in section 42, referred to above, in the explanation particularly in clause (b) it has been stated in clear words that the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall include a High Court of Pakistan that existed in Pakistan at any time before the fourteenth day of August, 1973.
11. Section 42, subsection (5) of the Constitution refers to the qualifications of a person who can be a Judge of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Under clause (b), explanation of subsection (5) of section 42 of the Constitution, a person from Pakistan can be appointed a Judge of Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir provided he fulfils the necessary qualifications. It seems ridiculous that if a person from Pakistan can be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, provided he fulfils the necessary qualifications, then why he cannot be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
12. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in the preliminary objection, the application moved by Ch. Muhammad Afzal, the learned counsel for the respondents, to the effect that appellant's counsel, Mr. Umar Mehmood Kasuri is not holding a valid licence of advocacy of Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir as such the above titled appeals have been filed by him incompetently and are not maintainable, is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we do not pass any order as to costs. The arguments on the appeals on merits shall be heard on 15-10-2003.