SYED MAHMOOD AKHTAR NAQVI versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
O IV, Rr 6, 15 & 30 Advocate In the case of a lawyer abusing the Supreme Court, follow the directive without a lawyer's absence or record (AOR) advocate's intervention while interrupting the proceedings in court. The suspension of the license implementation in the courtroom by using loud and unverbal accents as a lawyer for the Supreme Court and for the reasons why he should not be removed from practice as a Supreme Court advocate. There was no jurisdiction in favor of the Advocate Supreme Court, and it was given the option to appear in the present case. Nor was there any advocate for the Advocate on Record (AOR) from the Provincial Inspector General of Police, about whom the lawyer in question was representing the Advocate, whose last twelve dates he has been hearing. Hearing, and considering that they are not allowed to have an advocate on record, it is clear that O IV, R 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 was violated, knowing that such a deficiency, the lawyer Has conducted himself in question in a manner which shows that he has committed mismanagement and misconduct which was asked to provide clarification on the absence of a lawyer in question. How about a lawyer's guidance or a lawyer record? (AOR), he was present in the present case, but instead of presenting his explanation, he raised his voice, interrupted the judicial proceedings and initiated a riot, and thus behaved in a proper administration of justice. Was not suitable for and was. Also prohibited by the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973
