1. ' This C.M.A. No,1817 of 2003, under section 12(2), C.P.C., filed after much more than four years, to the passing of final order, dated 27-9-1999 in S.M.A. No,302 of 1998 purportedly filed on behalf of the objectors Sarmad Majeed and Mst. Naheed Kauser, by Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Khan, Advocate, seems to have been so filed, with the sole purpose of recovery of professional fees from the objectors. The prayers clause of this C.M.A. Also affirms this position.
2. ' Mr. Nisar A. Mujahid, Advocate for the petitioner in the above noted S.M.A. Has read before me the order, dated 27-9-1999 by which the S.M.A. Was finally disposed of and has submitted that Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Khan, Advocate was present, even at the time of disposal of the S.M.A. Mr. Nisar A.
3. Mujahid, Advocate has further pointed out that the earlier C.M.A. No,1732 of 1999 filed on behalf of the same objectors, by Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Khan, Advocate, was dismissed as not pressed. Thus, Mr. Nisar A. Mujahid, Advocate has contended that filing of present C.M.A. No,1817 of 2003 is intended to recover fees from the objectors and it .Has got no other meaning. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Khan, Advocate, on a query of the Court, admits that he has filed the listed C.M.A. On his own and without any instructions from the objectors as he was authorized to do so.
4. I am afraid, the course adopted by Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Khan, Advocate for recovery of fees from his former clients (he having ceased to have any fresh authority for instituting the C.M.A.), improper and not warranted under any law. He seems to have travelled beyond professional etiquette awl conduct, which an Advocate is expected to maintain, under the Bar Council Act, Rules and the Code of Conduct. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Khan, Advocate may be questioned by the relevant authority, about such conduct, which cannot be endorsed. This C.M.A No,1817 of 2003 is, therefore, dismissed as being not maintainable with cost of Rs,5,000 to be paid by Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Khan, Advocate to the petitioner, within one month. accordingly.