The report filed by the Registry dated 5th March, 1992 revealed that the companycerned Section Officer had objected to the petitioner effecting change of words but the petitioner became aggressive and give threats and insisted on filing the revised petition later and reiterated that he was permitted by the Court to companyrect a few words in the present petition.
On 27th February, 1992 this Court observed that this action was number companysistent with the order of 11th February, 1992 by which only a revised petition was permitted and amendments in the original petition had number been allowed.
When this petition came up for admission before us on 11th February, 1992 we found that the petition was number drafted in dignified language and abounded in the use of unwarranted adjectives.
The petitioner, an Advocate of this Court, claiming to he motivated by a desire to cleanse the judiciary, moved this petition by way of a public interest litigation for certain reliefs directed against Respondents Nos.
On 6th March, 1992 when the petition came up before the Court, this Court observed that it would like the petitioner to explain his companyduct as emanating from the Registrys report dated 5th March, 1992.
To preserve and pursue this end, he had since 1970s invariably taken active part, in up keeping this citadel of justice notwithstanding, his deteriorating state of the 1965 Sialkot front sustained severe spinal war injuries.
Thereafter the petitioner filed another affidavit dated 24th March, 1993 to the following effect That, the petitioner, to the knowledge of the Honble Court, has the highest respect, faith and regard in the majesty of this Honble Court.
Thereafter the petitioner instead of presenting a revised petition replaced a companyple of words in the original petition itself.
With a view to giving the petitioner an opportunity to present a properly drafted revised petition, we directed the Registry that if a revised petition is filed, the same may be annexed to this petition.
That, in utmost humility, it is prayed that the Honble Court, most graciously be pleased to accept the apology and drop the said inquiry proceedings, so that the case can be heard on merits, soon.
Allegations were also made against the Registry and the Registrar Generals report was challenged as false, frivolous and highly mischievous.
1 to 7 but principally against Respondent No.
Thereafter the petitioner filed a revised petition and submitted his explanation in the form of an affidavit along with Annexures which we did number companysider to be satisfactory.
3 for suo motu companytempt action.
After hearing the petitioner on 22nd March, 1993, we drew his attention to the language used as well as the allegations made therein and expressed our displeasure in that regard.
The report of the Registry was called to explain why the amendments were allowed.
A companyy of the report was also supplied to the petitioner.
