| View Citation |
Discussed Topic / Heading |
Crux of citation | Proceeded Stage / Law-Section |
Discussed Law-Section |
Category | Citation ID | Category of Citation |
Deciding Court | Name of Judge(s) |
Title of Case | Decision Date | Relied Citations | Keywords for General Search |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Family Court Review |
فیملی کورٹ اپنا طریقہ کار خود بنا سکتی ہے اس طرح اپنا آرڈر بھی ریویو / نظر ثانی کر سکتی ہے Family Court had every jurisdiction to adopt any procedure/law to meet the situation to do the substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice---Family Court could adopt every procedure/law in the furtherance of dispensation of justice unless the procedure/law going to be adopted was specifically prohibited---Family court could not refuse to exercise the jurisdiction on the ground of non-availability of the provision of review---Petitioner was allowed to file written statement and case was remanded to trial court to proceed afresh---Constitutional petition was allowed. |
Family / Guardian
|
2014 C L C 715 |
گارڈین اپیل نظرثانی |
|||||||||
Remedy against summoning order of magistrate after disagreeing from cancellation report is to file criminal revision and not writ. |
Criminal
|
2021 LHC 9759 (Crl.Misc.No.1983-M of 2021) |
High Court, Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
Mian Ansar Hayat v. The State & 10 others |
ikhraj report اخراج رپورٹ |
||||||||
summoning of accused while hearing cancellation of fir is administrative order not judicial. |
Criminal
|
||||||||||||
Plz open the link to view procedure |
Civil - Partition suit methodology
|
PARTITION SUITS AND ITS METHODOLOGY
In Courts of Pakistan huge number of partition suits are pending adjudication. As there is no proper mechanism with revenue hierarchy/revenue department or other law enforcing institutions to make partitions of properties without constraining the owners to approach the Courts of law. The difference of opinion and ill-unionship is a natural thing in a society and normally the people cannot survive in joint venture and to live an independent life or to utilize the property in his own manner, they are constrained to get divide their properties but through the course of law.
In partition suits there is no loser and both the parties are to be called winner but if the possession of the property is in the hands of tress-passer, then he can be loser of partition suit.
Partition is recognized by the legal maxim "Nemo in Communione potest invitus detineri", no one can be kept in co-proprietorship against his will. Partition is merely an arrangement whereby co-sharers having undivided interest in joint properties take by arrangements specific properties in lieu of their shares.
For partition suits the property can be divided in three types:
(i) Pure Agricultural Properties,
(ii) Agricultural and Constructed mixed properties, and
(iii) Pure Constructed Properties (in the shape of houses, shops, markets and etc).
Undoubtedly relief for partition in respect of agricultural properties can be sought from Revenue Officer under Chapter XI Section 135 and other relevant sections of this chapter.
Similarly if the property subject of partition is partly agricultural and partly constructed, then as per law laid down by the Superior Courts, it will be analyzed that whether which type of property has a major portion, if agricultural then Revenue Courts will be approached, otherwise relief for partition will be obtained from Ordinary Civil Courts of Law.
So far as pure constructed properties are concerned, they can be got divided from ordinary civil Courts through a suit for partition under the Partition Act, 1893.
PRE-CAUTIONS IN PARTITION SUITS:
(i) (JURISDICTION):
Case must be filed in the appropriate Court of jurisdiction. While assessing the question of jurisdiction, first of all territorial jurisdiction should be ascertained and the suit for partition in respect of immovable property must be filed having regard to Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, and ordinarily it is to be filed in that Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the immovable property is situated.
Secondly, subject matter jurisdiction must be assessed as highlighted above, suits in respect of pure agricultural property or major portion of agricultural property is to be filed in Revenue Courts, and regarding constructed property or major portion of constructed property is to be filed in Civil Courts. In case titled: Qamar Sultan Vs Mst. Bibi Sufaidan, reported in 2012 SCMR 695, it was held that, "Jurisdiction in respect of partition of agricultural property and to grant relief would lay with the revenue Court".
While dealing with the matter of jurisdiction the Court should have to take great care for deciding that whether the suit property is an agricultural one or constructed/commercial. In case titled: Sher Ahmad Khan Vs Sardar Khan, reported in 2008 PLD 97 Peshawar, it was held that, "if the land was agricultural, then the partition of the same was exclusively amenable to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of S. 172, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 was barred which proposition, however, was subject to one exception that if the agricultural land would lose its character and would become building site or commercial area, then the civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit with respect to its partition. Whether the land or its major portion was covered by abadi or the same was exclusively agricultural land, was a spot related question, which could be determined by the Trial Court after the appointment of a local commission who, after visiting the spot, would be in a position to determine the nature of the property".
In case titled: Jamal ud Din Vs Haji Gul Khan, reported in 2012 CLC 1353 Quetta, the august superior Courts provided a procedure for preferring the matter of partition to a Revenue Court and held that, "Party interested in partition of his share in suit property, had to make an application for partition of the land to a Revenue Officer as per provision of S. 135 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967".
The Revenue Officer while dealing with the partition of the property could decide only question of title in property to be partitioned while acting as a civil Court of competent jurisdiction, but could not decide all other questions falling within jurisdiction of Civil Court. In case titled: Mst. Farzana Vs Mst. Sehti, reported in 2012 PLD 241 Karachi, it was held that, "Revenue Officer while deciding questions as to property to be partitioned or mode of its partition would act only as Revenue Officer, but not as a revenue Court or civil Court".
Revenue Officer can decide matter of title in the immovable property and if he thinks fit, then he can sent the same matter to the Civil Court for deciding matter of title to the immovable property. In case titled: Muhammad Yousaf Khan Vs Board of Revenue, reported in 2002 CLC 739 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, it is held that, "Where question of title would arise in property to be partitioned, Revenue Officer could himself determine question of title or refer matter to Civil Court for its determination".
(ii) (PARTIES).
All Co-sharers in the joint properties are to be arrayed as a party to the partition case and no name should be left from impleadment, in order to save the suit from the plea of non-joinder.
In case titled: Syed Ain Ullah vs Dilber and others, reported in 2013 MLD 708 Baluchistan, it was held that, "dismissal of suit on the basis of non-joinder of a necessary party was an erroneous decision as under Order I Rule 9, CPC, no suit shall be defeated by the reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the trial Court was empowered to implead a person to the proceedings who it deemed to be necessary for determination of matter in issue".
In case titled: Muhammad Younas Sheikh Vs Corex enterprises and another, reported in 2007 MLD 508 Karachi, it was held that, "Suit would not be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the Court could deal with the matter in controversy so far as regarded the rights and interests of the parties actually before it".
Similar guideline is also provided in the below mentioned rulings of superior Courts that mis-joinder or non-joinder is not fatal to the suit, those judgments are as under:
a. 2011 YLR 1999 Quetta, b. 2011 SCMR 1460,
c. 2010 MLD 1596 Quetta, d. 2007 SCMR 729 Citation
 .Keeping in mind the afore-referred verdicts of the august superior Courts, though mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties is not fatal to the civil litigation and the trial Court is supposed to determine the issue even in those suits in which this defect is present. But at the same time the law advises that all parties having an interest in the subject matter of the suit should be arrayed as a party either in the panel of plaintiffs or defendants. So great care should be made that in suit for possession through partition all the co-sharers/Khata shareek are joined as a party.
(iii) (FULL PARTITION SUIT IS TO BE BROUGHT AND NOT FOR PARTIAL PARTITION).
All properties which are in joint venture of the parties are to be included in the partition suit, in order to save the suit from the question of Partial Partition.
In case titled: Noor Muhammad and others Vs Allah Ditta and others, reported in PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198 citation (C), the august Apex Court held that, "Co-owner in a joint property was not entitled without assent or acquisance of the other co-sharers, to exclude portion of joint property or to select a particular portion for the purpose of partition. Co-sharer was required to seek the partition of the landed property as a whole".
In case titled: Ghulam Rasool and another Vs Muhammad Khalid and others, reported in 2006 YLR 2289 Lahore, the august Court held that, "party opting to come for partition was not permitted to pick and choose and to have share in valuable parts of the joint holdings by leaving out its parties with lesser value, suit found to be for partial partition was not maintainable".
In case titled: Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas Vs Barkat Ali and another, reported in 1999 YLR 2190 Lahore citation (b), the Hon'ble Court held that, "partition of holding could not be affected without including the entire land of property, partial partition was bad in law".
(iv) (NO PRIOR PARTITION OR PRIVATE SETTLEMENT/KHANGI TAQSEEM).
The suit must be in respect of those joint properties in respect of which neither any regular partition was made priorly nor the properties should have been divided through private settlement/Khangi Taqseem.
To prove private partition, party should have to produce/exhibit order of partition or copy of Roznamcha Waqiati showing delivery of possession or Tatimma made in favour of co-sharer/party.
The fact of Private partition is always considered in the course of litigation, as such sanctity is available to the same. In a case titled: Irshad alieas Abdul Rahim Vs Ashiq Hussain, reported in 2007 PLD 421 Karachi, the Hon'ble Court held that, "Private arrangement and partition deserves the same sanctity which a lawful contract deserves and should not be interfered within any legal proceedings unless the private arrangement or partition is otherwise not legally permissible".
If a dispute between the co-sharers arises in a situation when private partition has been arrived between them, but they have no formal partition deed in their hands or it has been lost, then in such like circumstances, the possession of respective party would be of great importance in determining the real issue of private partition. In case titled: Naveed Ahmad Vs Iqbal Begum, reported in 2006 YLR 2341 Lahore, it is held that, "Private Partition between the parties--
—Absence of formal partition deed—Question of possession would assume critical significance".
Private partition should be proved independently.
(v) (CO-SHARERSHIP).
It is to be established that the claimant is co-sharer in the property subject of partition.
In case titled: Gulzar Begum Vs Mehboob Hussain alias Mehboob Khan, reported in 2012 YLR 809 High Court AJK, the Hon'ble Court held that, "Possession on the said land could not be distributed till partition of the same in accordance with law was not made".
In another case titled: Muhammad Ismail Vs Ghulam Sarwar, reported in 2008 YLR 420 Lahore, the remedy was given to a co-sharer who desired to get possession of his share in an undivided property and it is held that, ''only manner in which the plaintiffs could get possession was by filing a suit for partition and separate possession".
Sometimes a question arises that whether a co-sharer can sell his share in the joint khata or not. This question is resolved by the august Lahore High Court in case titled: Abdul Ghaffar Vs Waqas Hafeez, reported in 2010 CLC 285 Lahore, it was held by the august Court that, "Co-sharer in possession in a khata has a right to alienate a specific piece of land in his possession and the transferee acquires the same rights as the transferor".
It is the basic right of each and every co-sharer that he can claim partition of the joint property at any time and there is no limitation against such claim. This preposition has been set by worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Rafiq, reported in 2004 SCMR 1036 Supreme Court, wherein it is held that, "Partition could be claimed by any of the joint owners during currency of joint ownership without limitation of any period in that behalf, so long as his right was not denied".
In case titled: Ashiq Hussain Vs Prof. Muhammad Aslam, reported in 2004 MLD 1844 Lahore, it is held that, "suit for permanent injunction against the other co-sharers was not maintainable except by bringing a suit for partition of joint property".
TRIAL OF PARTITION BY CIVIL COURT:
In partition suits ordinarily the civil Courts bifurcate the claim into two rounds/stages:
(a) First round/stage is finalized on preliminary decree of the partition suits or if some flaws highlighted here-in-above are involved, then it is dismissed.
In the preliminary round of litigation of partition suits, the trial Court mainly checked the question of jurisdiction, the entitlement/co-sharership of the parties, and other merits of the case and if the case is made out by the claimant, then in this round of litigation the Court determines the shares of the parties in joint property.
(b) Second round/stage is called final decree proceedings. In this round application for the grant of final decree is filed by the decree holder, on the basis of which issues notice to the respondents, and if they contest the same, they file reply. The Court after hearing the parties appoints a local commission under Section 75 read with order 26 of CPC for determination of mode of partition. The commission as per directions of the Court visits the property subject of partition and examines it, whether it is partitionable or not. If it is not partitionable then the local commissioner evaluate the market value of the decretal property and thereafter he submits his report. The Court passes order of sale of decretal property and then passes order of division of proceeds of sale between the parties in accordance with their determine shares.
The report of local commissioner in determining the actual position of the property sought to be partitioned is of much importance, as the same can help the Court for determining the fact that whether the property is partitionable or not and if partitionable then what should be the criteria for its partition.
If the property is partitionable then the local commission in the presence of the parties and record keeper of the property, if any, suggests the mode of partition. He prepares a sketch/map of the spot. Legally speaking the local commission keeping in mind the possession of each party, their shares, the valuable and priceless portions of the property, the construction if any, suggests the mode of partition keeping in mind this notion that every co-sharer must received the constructed portion, valuable and priceless portion as that all them are equally accommodated. Thereafter, the local commission submits its report, the Court invites the objections if any, of the parties, examine the local commission, if necessary and either confirmed or set aside the commission report. If it is set aside, then the Court appoints another commission with the same directions and work, otherwise in case of confirmation of the commission report, the Court passes final decree.
Thereafter, the decree holder brings an execution application for getting possession on the spot in accordance with the final decree.
It also pertinent to mention that the outcome of first round of partition suit i.e. preliminary decree is always subject to appeal, then revision or second appeal, and finally it is also challengeable before the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction envisaged under Article 185 of the Constitution. Similarly the final decree if the parties so desires, can be challenged through the same process, appeal, revision/second appeal and appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution, and the last stage is the execution as mentioned above.
TO GET REMEDY IN CASES OF PARTITION IS TIME CONSUMING PROCESS:
A huge number of suits for partition are pending before different Civil Courts of Pakistan and a great number of civil appeals, civil revision and CPLA are pending before District Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court of Pakistan. As observed above, that as there is no direct/automatic mechanism for partition/division of immovable properties except the litigation, a large number of people are making visits of different Courts for getting relief. It is also observed that even a suit for partition take great time in civil Court, if we roughly calculate it takes:
(i) Six years in civil/Trial Court;
(ii) Two years in Appellate/District Court;
(iii) Six years in Revisional/High Court; and
(iv) Six years in Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Meaning thereby a partition suit takes minimum Twenty years. It must be kept in mind that in partition suits there is no concept of looser, both the parties if found co-owners, get relief and except the tress-passer both the parties are accommodated by the Court. But what happened practically, a partition suit is brought and the same is decided but at the end of the day it is defeated due to the below mentioned flaws:
i. (Jurisdiction).
ii. (Non-joinder).
iii. (Partial partition).
iv. (Prior partition or private settlement/Khangi Taqseem).
v. (No Co-sharership).
It is need of hour that the august Supreme Court of Pakistan like guidelines provided for rent cases, in case titled: Barkat Ali Vs Muhammad Ihsan, etc, reported in 2000 SCMR 556, also provides guidelines for partition suits and to declare it necessary that some proforma's prepared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan are to be made available with the partition suit at the time of its institution and these proforma must be filled by the counsel of the plaintiffs, signed by him and also by the plaintiffs. These proforma must relate to the issues mentioned below:
(i) The Court has got the jurisdiction,
(ii) All the co-sharers and necessary parties are impleaded,
(iii) The suit is regarding whole property and not for a particular portion,
(iv) There is no prior regular or private partition and
(v) The plaintiffs are co-sharers in the property subject of partition and there due share, if determined and known should be highlighted.
This effort will surely minimize the agonies of poor litigants who are visiting Courts for their suits regarding partition.
If both the parties claiming possession over the suit property, then such phenomena deals with the factual controversy and the same could only be resolved after calling of evidence from both sides. In case titled: Abdul Qadir Vs Sher Muhammad, reported in 2010 MLD 1596 Quetta, it was held that, "Section 54 and O.XX, R. 18, C.P.C. were to be observed while deciding the issues of partition".
PROCEDURE IN RESPECT OF PARTITION OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES IN REVENUE COURTS:
As explained in case of Noor Muhammad and others Vs Allah Ditta and others, reported in PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198 by the august Supreme Court that proceedings of partition of agricultural land before the Revenue Officers were not governed by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, particularly when the question of title was not involved, such proceedings being summary in nature do not partake the character of a civil suit necessitating the framing of issues or recording of evidence of the parties.
According to Section 142 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 the Revenue Officer was to decide the question by holding an inquiry as he deemed necessary.
Application for partition of agricultural property is to be filed under Section 135 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 by impleading all co-sharers as a party by joining complete property which is in joint venture of the parties. The Revenue Court after noticing the respondents and after getting replies, if any, from them will summons the patwari halqa and will direct him to prepare Naqsha "Alif', "Bay" and "Jeem".
(i) Naqsha Alif will show Shares/Hissas of parties in the property in question.
(ii) Naqsha Bay will show proposed Khasrawise shares of parties and basically in this document the mode of partition is determined and proposed Tatimaas are curved out. Basically this document denotes the division of shares and in Urdu it is known as (نقشہ ب،بٹوار).
(iii) Naqsha Jeem will show the proposal regarding the partition mutation and in urdu it is known as (نقشہ ج جدائی).
At the end the revenue officer will examine the record and will hear the arguments, if any, of the counsels of the parties and if there is no question of earlier private/regular partition or non-joinder or partial partition or jurisdiction or title dispute will allow the application and passed the order and issue "Sanad-Sultani" in favour of the applicants as per the above referred Naqshajaat. Thereafter, for practical possession, the applicant may apply to an through an execution application and finally possession is handed over to him on the spot.
Similarly as per decision, the revenue officer will enter and attest partition mutation and will curved-out the "Tattimaas" by dividing the available Khasra numbers in Bye-numbers.
In case titled: Khawaja Muhammad Arif Vs Mrs. Tahira Asif, reported in 2005 PLD 972 Supreme Court, it is held by the worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan that, "Decree of partition is an "instrument of Partition" and as such has to be engrossed on stamp paper and in case it is not done the decree can neither be executed nor could be acted upon". "Real test of "instrument of partition" is whether there was any property of which the parties were co-owners and the property was being divided by the deed in scverality, entitling the parties to the separate enjoyment of that property".
LEGAL AFFECT OF PRIVATE PARTITION OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY:
Private partition of agricultural properties between the co-sharers will have no legal affect until the same is affirmed by the Revenue Officer U/S 147 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, which provides that "In any case in which a partition has been made without the intervention of a Revenue Officer, any party thereto may apply to a Revenue Officer for an order affirming the partition. On receiving the application, the Revenue Officer shall enquire into the case, and if he finds that the partition has in fact been made, he may make an order affirming it and proceed under Sections 143, 144, 145 and 146, or any of those sections, as circumstances may require, in the same manner as if the partition had been made on at application to himself under this chapter.
In case titled: Noor Muhammad and others Vs Allah Ditta and others, reported in PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198 citation (C), the august Apex Court held that, "Private partition does not determine the legal rights but simply indicates the mode of division of property among them".
In case titled: Syed Musarrat Shah Vs Syed Ahmed Shah alias Lal Bacha reported in 2012 PLD 151 Peshawar, the august Court held that, "Mere entry of partition mutation, could not be declared to be sufficient enough to have the protection of law". If other steps have not been taken in respect of the affirmation of the private partition, i.e. inquiry about private partition, passing of order of affirmation of private partition, administration of property excluded from partition, distribution of revenue and rent amongst the co-owners after partition, instrument of partition and delivery of possession to all the concerned co-sharers according to the partition so reached between the parties.
OTHER ISSUES REGARDING PARTITION
UN-DIVISIBLE NATURE OF PROPERTY:
One another problem which is now a day very common and which the masses faces in the urban area is that sometimes the property is of un-divisible nature, so in such a situation if any one of the co-sharers files a suit for partition of the such property, then the Court should have to take great care in such like cases and should take assistance from law by applying S.2 of Partition Act, 1893. In case titled: Iqbal Ahmad Vs Mst. Aziz Bano, reported in 2010 MLD 784 Karachi, it is held that, "Provisions of S.2 of Partition Act, 1893, made it generally permissible that in a suit of such nature, a property if found incapable of being partitioned by metes and bounds, the same might be sold out and proceeds thereof might be distributed among the share-holders/co-owners to resolve the controversy between them in respect thereof as once for all".
RIGHT OF CO-SHARER TO BUY WHOLE UNDIVIDED PROPERTY WHICH IS OF INDIVISIBLE NATURE:
Once a preliminary decree is passed by a Court of law then the Court has left with no other option by to proceed under S. 3 of the Partition Act, 1893. This fact has further been confirmed by the verdict of the Lahore High Court, in case tilled: Firdous Begum Vs Mst. Salamat Bibi reported in 2008 CLC 248 Lahore, in which it is held that, "Once preliminary decree was passed, then provisions of S. 2 of Partition Act, 1893 would not apply and Court would have to pass final decree and resort to provision of S. 3 thereof and in case of failure of any share-holder to apply for leave to buy share, then property would be liable to be auctioned. Once property was found to be indivisible, then Court for effecting partition would have to follow procedure laid down in Partition Act, 1893 after providing opportunity to shareholders to apply for leave to buy property".
REMEDIES WITH THE PERSON/CO-SHARER WHO IS DISPOSSESSED:
In case titled: Contractor Haji Muhammad Alam Vs Shaukat Sultan, reported in 2009 SCMR 688, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "where a co-sharer in possession is dispossessed by another co-sharer, then he has two remedies to avail, he can either file suit for partition or a suit under S.9, Specific Relief Act, 1877".
In another case titled: Shoukat Sultan Vs Haji Muhammad Alam, reported in 2008 YLR 1698 Lahore, it is held the by the august High Court that, "where co-sharer in possession was dispossessed by another co-sharer, then he had two options, namely he could either wait and file suit for partition or he could file a suit under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877".
In another case titled: Niaz War Jan Vs Gul Nawaz, reported in 2007 YLR 1723 Peshawar, it is held by the august High Court that, "A co-sharer in possession of a joint property was not liable to be ousted therefrom, except on a partition by metes and bounds taking place between the co-sharers".
In case titled: Muhammad Riaz Vs Mumtaz Ali through Legal Heirs, reported in 2006 YLR 1071, it is held that, "where both the parties were co-sharers in the joint un-partition Khata and their remedy was to seek partition in accordance with law by impleading all other co-sharers in khata—If a co-sharer was dispossessed by another co-sharer his remedy was for partition of joint property or a suit under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, for possession but a regular suit under section 8 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, was not maintainable—Suit filed by the petitioner could not be treated to be one under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, as there was no specific averment that they were illegally or forcibly dispossessed from the land in dispute".
Remedies provided to the co-sharer who has been dispossessed has also been given by august Lahore High Court in case titled: Nazar Hussain Vs Additional District Judge, Chakwal reported in 2004 YLR 322, wherein it is held that, "Co-sharer in possession, if dispossessed had two remedies; one a suit for separate possession by partition; and the second a suit in accordance with terms of S. 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877".
MESNE PROFIT:
Any person in possession of the property enjoying benefit therefrom to the exclusion of rightful owner, he would be liable to pay rent or mesne profit to the person who has been dispossessed or deprived of his property. In a case titled: Muhammad Anwar Vs Dr. Gohar Ali, reported in 2007 CLC 621 Karachi, it is held that, "Co-owner in possession to the exclusion of other co-owner in such case, could be held liable to the extent of his unauthorized or hostile occupation, possession or enjoyment thereof. Once a person established and Court came to a conclusion that person was entitled to any right or share in the property; and he was being deprived of use of such right or share in property by the other person, then the owner who was out of possession or enjoyment would become entitled to claim those profits actually received by person in unlawful possession or enjoyment of such part thereof, as the case could be".
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IN CASE OF SHAMILAT PROPERTY:
In case titled: Barkat Ali Vs Sultan Mehmood, reported in 2009 CLC 899 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, it is held that, "Suit land was shamilat Deh, about which the civil Court had limited jurisdiction and could not grant permanent injunction against all the Share-holders who possessed the land in the estate as well. Unless the shamilat Deh land partitioned by metes and bounds by the Revenue Authorities, no specific share could be declared to be in possession of any land-owner".
QUESTION OF POSSESSION OF CO-SHARER IN UNDIVIDED PROPERTY:
In case titled: Syed Shabir Hussain Shah and others Vs Asghar Hussain Shah, reported in 2007 SCMR 1884 Supreme Court, it is held by the Apex Court that, "Every Co-owner/Co-sharer would be considered to be in possession of each inch of un-partitioned land according to his share".
In case titled: Munawar Hussain Vs Amanat Ali, reported in 2007 YLR 1756 Lahore, it is held that, "any transfer out of joint khata even with regard to specific khasra number is always subject to final adjustment of partition. No person can claim his exclusive ownership with regard to a specific khasra number on the ground of having been purchased by him to the exclusion of other co-sharer".
Actual possession of a joint owner in an undivided property in of no value and it would not affect the rights of other co-sharers. As it is discussed by the august Lahore High Court in case titled: Muhammad Arif Vs Muhammad Hafeez, reported in 2007 MLD 1983, that, "Actual possession of a co-owner/co-sharer in case of joint land would be of no relevance. Such possession to all purposes would inure to benefit of remaining co-owners/co-sharers as well till such time partition was affected".
Sometimes it happens that a co-sharer started raising construction over an undivided property, without consulting and associating other co-sharers or without taking their prior approval. In such an eventualities, a co-sharer who is dis-agreed with the act of another co-sharer who is raising construction can come to the Court and stop him from such an act. In a case of Ghulam Rasool Vs Umar Hayat, reported in 2004 YLR 1136 Lahore, it is held by august Lahore High Court that, "Each co-share was owner in every part of the joint holdings to the extent of his entitlement—No co-sharer could be permitted to change character of the land to the exclusion of other co-sharers, without resorting to some lawful partition proceedings".
Possession of a co-sharer on a specific part of an undivided property carries little weight when the property comes to the partition proceedings. In a case of Muhammad Younas Vs Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, reported in 2004 YLR 793 Lahore, it is held while deciding the revision petition that, "Each and every co-sharer would be deemed to be owner and also in possession of every inch of joint land till such time, same is partitioned by metes and bounds—Actual possession over joint land would matter little, when land comes to partition".
In a case titled: Mst. Ghulam Fatima Vs Muhammad Munir, reported in 2004 CLC 995 Lahore, it is held that, "Dispute among co-sharers with respect to possession of their property could be settled through partition of the same from a competent Court".
In case titled: Khurshid Anwar Jalil Vs Muhammad Hafeez Mirza, reported in 2003 CLC 1695 Lahore, it is held that, "every joint owner shall be deemed to be in possession of each and every inch of joint property—If strong co-sharer after taking possession of more valuable part of joint property either alienates same or changes its character, then it cannot be said that weak/poor co-sharer may file suit for partition and till its decision, strong co-sharer may alienate same or change its character and throw his adversary into ditches or barren land by taking commercially valuable land abutting on road side or more fertile land—Such course cannot be allowed under principle of equity and justice".
CONSTRUCTION BENEFICIAL FOR OTHER CO-SHARERS:
Plea that the construction raised by one co-sharer would be beneficial to other co-sharers, as the same will increase the value of the property is disregarded by worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Fazal Vs Ghulam Muhammad, reported in 2003 SCMR 999 Supreme Court, wherein it is held that, "Defendants instead of raising construction on the property which was admittedly owned by the plaintiffs, should have first of all got the same partitioned and then might have constructed the portion of land falling in their share".
Suit for possession of specific khasra number is not maintainable against a co-sharer unless the whole khata is not partitioned. In a case of Dilmeer Vs Rajab Ali reported in 2003 MLD 484 Lahore, it is held that, "Trial Court could to pass a decree for specific khasra number from joint khata, unless joint khata was partitioned—Suit for possession against a co-sharer was not maintainable—Every co-sharer, however, would have a right to seek partition in accordance with law".
No co-sharer can be dispossessed from an immovable property which is of an undivided nature, except in accordance with law. In a case titled: Khawaja Masood Ahmad Vs Sajad Sarwar reported in 2002 MLD 434 Lahore, it is held that, "Person acquiring possession of immovable property at the very inception as co-owner could not be dispossessed from the same without proper partition and a decree/order of a competent Court in that regard".
WHEN ENTITLEMENT OF PARTY ESTABLISHED IN PROPERTY, PARTITION CANNOT BE DENIED:
It is prime duty of the party who wants the Court to issue an order of partition in his favour in respect of some immovable property that he should have first established that he is owner in the suit property or that he has some rights attached to the immovable property, along with other essential conditions of Jurisdiction, non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties, case for full partition. No private partition and if he succeeded in proving all essential requirements of partition, then it became his right that a decree or order for partition should be passed in his favour, if any other legal question not arises in his way. In case titled: Muhammad Anwar Vs Dr. Gohar Ali, reported in 2007 CLC 621 Karachi, it is held that, "Once entitlement of the plaintiff to the suit property was established, partition and division of property could not be denied, unless, of course, it was shown that such property was incapable of division and partition.
IMPLEADMENT OF PARTY/CO-SHARER AFTER PASSING OF PRELIMINARY DECREE:
As it is the established principle of law, set down by the superior Courts of Pakistan that no one should be condemned unheard and keeping in view the said principle, the Court always try to decide the disputes between the parties on merits and after hearing them and after affording them ample opportunity to safeguard their rights. Even a co-sharer can come to the Courts of law and defend his rights after passing of preliminary decree, in which he did not joined the proceedings. In a case titled: Mst. Maqsooda Vs Muhammad Azeem, reported in 2004 YLR 1019 Lahore, it is held that "So long land in dispute remained joint and final decree was not drawn up, any necessary party being vested with title or interest therein, could be impleaded".
ALIENATION OF PROPERTY/POSSESSION OF CO-SHARER IN JOINT KHATA:
In case titled: Muhammad Bashir Vs Noor Rehman, reported in 2011 MLD 1518 Lahore, the august Court held that, "Co-sharer in possession of specific property not beyond his share could protect his possession till taking place of partition in accordance with law".
In another case titled: Abdur Rehman VS Muhammad Siddique through L.Rs, reported in 2006 MLD 442 Lahore, it is held that, "Co-sharer in possession could, while alienating his share, transfer possession of his holding to another person which would be subject to partition. Co-sharer would be entitled to retain possession of land in joint khata till it was partitioned by metes and bounds".
A Co-sharer can alienate his share in an undivided property and there is no embargo upon him for doing so. In case titled: Mst. Bibi Jan VS Mir Zaman, reported in 2003 CLC 909 Peshawar, it is held that, "Co-owners in possession of specific area can alienate same subject to final adjustment at time of actual partition".
If a co-sharer sells in portion of property in an undivided khata, and deliver the possession of some specific area to the vendee, then the vendee can retain the possession of such land which was delivering to him by the vendor till final partition. In case titled Muhammad Aslam Vs Amir Muhammad Khan, reported in 2003 YLR 1870 Lahore, it is held that, "Co-sharer was entitled to transfer a specific khasra number under his exclusive possession to the vendee and the he (vendee) would continue in possession til the partition of the joint khata because the vendee stepped into the shoes of the vendor as co-sharer".
A Co-sharer can alienate a property in favour of other person but he cannot alienate a property with a specific description of boundaries unless the property is being properly partitioned. In a case titled: Muhammad Anwar Vs Mst. Nawab Bibi, reported in 2003 MLD 742 Lahore, it is held that, "Vendors although co-sharers, yet were not in possession of specific khasra numbers and, therefore, they were not entitled to transfer and lawfully alienate the plot with boundaries in favour of vendee".
CONCEPT OF OWELTY OF PARTITION:
Owelty is an equalization charge. It is the amount that one co-owner must pay to another after a suit of partition, so that each co-owner receives equal value from the property. This is done to achieve equality after exchange of parcels of land having different values or after an unequal partition of real property, or Owelty of partition is a sum of money paid by one of two caparceners or co-tenants to the other, when a partition has been effected between them, but the land not being susceptible of division into exactly equal shares, such payment is required to make the portions respectively assigned to them of equal value.
In case titled: Mrs. Saadia Muzaffar through her attorney Vs Mrs. Khadija Manzur, reported in 2006 CLC 401 Karachi, it is held that, "Co-owners would have equal right in every part of property until a regular partition was affected. Merely because defendant was in occupation of front portion of property purporting to be of higher value would not give him right to more benefit than what was possessed by plaintiff. Concept of owelty was not applicable to such case".
CONCLUSION
From above details we can assess that in civil suits the claims of partition of property is highly technical and complicated job. In order to accommodate the people it is need of hour that the Govt. should take serious steps for computerizing the revenue record or other property record. Further settlements in all districts of Pakistan are to be made regularly and at the time of settlement, if the revenue officers found any joint property as impliedly divided by co-sharers through an implied/silent private partition, to give it effect in the record without constraining them to have a recourse of litigation. Secondly it is also inevitable that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan like laid downing the procedure in rent cases, as evident from Barkat Ali case 2000 SCMR 556, also considered the question of partitions for facilitating the people of Pakistan.
|
|||||||||||
open link |
Civil - Partition Act
|
THE PUNJAB PARTITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT 2012 (Act IV of 2013) |
|||||||||||
Second Suit |
پہلا دعوی واپس لینے سے پہلے ہی دوسرا دعوی اگر دائر اکر کر دیا جائے تو آرڈر 23 ضابطہ دیوانی پابندی عائد نہیں کر سکتا۔ 2023 CLC 1368 |
Civil
|
2nd suit |
||||||||||
Ex-Parte Proceedings |
یکطرفہ کاروائی Ex Parte Proceedings |
Restoration after Ex Parte |
Order IX |
Civil
|
|||||||||
کسی ملزم کو24گھنٹےکےاندر عدالت میں جان بوجھ کر پیش نہ کرنےوالے پولیس اہلکار کو1سال تک قید اور جرمانہ ہو گا۔ 157 of Police Order, 2002 |
5000-157 Criminal - Non Production of Accused to Cour
|
24 twenty four hours |
|||||||||||
Torture on Accused |
اگرپولیس آفیسر زیرحراست ملزم پر تشدد کرتا ھےتو اس آفیسرکو 5 سال تک قید اور جرمانہ ھو سکتاھے۔
Article 156 (D) Police Order 2002 |
5000-156 Criminal - Police Torture
|
|||||||||||
Quashment of FIR. Delay in FIR |
302 PPC |
5000 Criminal - Quashment of FIR
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan |
||||||||||
پولیس اسٹیشن میں محرر کا عہدہ 24 گھنٹے میں 1 منٹ کے لئے بھی خالی نہیں رہ سکتا ۔ Chapter 22, Rule 8, Police Rules 1934 |
5000 Criminal - Police Rules
|
||||||||||||
Research Research |
5000 Criminal - Narcotics
|
||||||||||||
489F PPC - BAIL DISMISSED 2013 YLR 2428 (498-A), 2014 PCrLJ 1698 (497), 2013 YLR 566 (497), 2013 YLR 626 (497), BAIL GRANTED 2013 YLR 945 (497), 2015 PCrLJ 90, 2015 PCRLJ 129 (497), SBLR 2016 SINDH 1402 (497), 2014 SCMR 1369 (498), 2016 PCrLJ Note 57 (497), 2016 PCrLJ 717 (497), 2016 SCMR 1032 (497), 2014 YLR 497, 2012 YLR 930 (497), 2012 YLR 1199 (497) |
489-F |
5000 Criminal - Bail
|
20162014 |
||||||||||
Limitation to file criminal appeal against acquittal is 30 thirty days. |
5000 Criminal - Appeal
|
||||||||||||
ترکہ وراثت Inheritence shares. Surah Baqrah end, Surah Nisa, also in Pedegree Degree mentioned in Muhammadan Law |
5000 Civil - Inheritence
|
ترکہ وراثت |
|||||||||||
رسیور مقرر کیا جانا۔ Appointment of Receiver |
5000 Civil - Appointment of Receiver
|
<p>(PLD 2007 Karachi 527)</p>
<p>(PLD 1970 Karachi 42)</p>
<p>(1974 SCMR 54)</p>
<p>(PLD 1975 Lahore 492)</p>
<p>(PLD 1977 Lahore 830)</p> |
PLD 2007 Karachi 527 (Saeed ur Rehman versus Ehsanullah Khan Afridi PLD 1970 Karachi 42 (Smt. Vanibai versus Republic of Pakistan & others) 1974 SCMR 54 (M. Ataur Rehman Alvi versus Inamur Rahman PLD 1975 Lahore 492 (Sardar Wali Muhammad versus Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal PLD 1977 Lahore 830 (Mst. Ghulam Zainab verus Mst. Tahira Sultana c.p.c 40 Rule 1 of Order XL CPC |
||||||||||
Partition of Immovable Act |
The Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 has repealed the Partition Act of 1893 |
5000
|
<p>Civil-Partition</p> |
||||||||||
Tnsfer of Property act 1882 Section 52h. Tere is also an exception to this section which is in section 41 Specification 1877 section5 25 clause (a) Registration act 1908 section 34 |
5000
|
||||||||||||
Partition of Residential Property |
2023 PLD 81 (Lahore High Court) S. 6---Written statement---Delay in filing written statement---Mandatory provision---Scope---Section 6 OF THE PUNJAB PARTITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT , 2012 , provides a period OF 30 days to a defendant for filing THE written statement which starts from THE date OF first appearance OF defendant before THE Court---Under subsection (2) OF S. 6, penalty has been provided if THE written statement is not filed within THE stipulated time and in case OF such default, THE Court "shall" strike OF f THE defence OF THE defendant as a consequence OF which he shall also not be allowed to lead his evidence. |
S. 6 of the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 (IV of 2013) |
2023-01-00
|
2023 PLD 81 (Lahore High Court) |
<p>Civil - Partition</p> |
High Court Lahore |
FAisal Zaman Khan J. |
Wali Muhammad and another vs Shaukat Ali and 7 others |
2022-01-31 |
Writ Petition no. 226293 of 2018 |
|||
کسی عدالت سے ملزم کے بری ہونے کے بعد اس کے خلاف درج شدہ مقدمات کو ظاہر کرنا ملزم کے خلاف تعصب اور ملزم کے بنیادی حقوق کے خلاف ہے۔ ایساعمل بدنیتی سے کورٹ کا ذہن تبدیل کرنے کی ایک کوشش ہوتی ہے۔ PLD 2023 Lahore 512 After earning acquittal from the court of competent jurisdiction, that criminal case has no relevance against the acquitted accused, therefore, mentioning any case, in which acquittal had been secured, in a list of cases against that person, is violative of his fundamental rights and an attempt to prejudice the mind of the Court through misrepresentation. |
2023-000000-57
|
PLD 2023 Lahore 512 |
<p>Earlier Acquittal of Accused</p> |
Lahore High Court |
|||||||||
ایف آئی آر میں تاخیر کسی صورت ضمانت کی منظوری کی گراؤنڈ نہیں۔ 2023 YLR 1852 Delay in FIR is no ground of mail.
|
2023-
|
||||||||||||
Temporary Injunction |
حکم امتناعی جاری ہونے کے بعد جب تک ختم نہ کیا جائے جاری سمجھا جائے گا۔ 2023 PLC (CS) 103
Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908 ) --- -0.XXXIX , Rr.1 & 2 --- Injunctive order --- Effect --- When an injunctive order is passed the same is to be considered after application of mind while considering facts and circumstances of case --- Such order remains in field till final adjudication or till its recalling or vacating order has been passed by Court.
(2023 P L C (CS) 103)
|
2023
|
2023- |
39 1 & 2 and |
|||||||||
CDR |
کال ڈیٹا ریکارڈ PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 371 Call Data Record |
Evidence |
2023
|
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 371 |
HIC-L |
Three Judges |
2023- |
Call Data Record |
|||||
Mesne Profits |
2023 YLR 1362 Lahore |
2023
|
2023 YLR 1362 Lahore |
Anwaar Hussain J. |
Mehmood Idrees vs Khalid Hussain Etc |
2023/2021-10-20 |
|||||||
Maintenance |
How much previous maintenance can be decreed. 2023 CLC 161 |
2023
|
2023 CLC 161 |
Lahore High Court, Lahore |
2023 |
||||||||
Family - Execution |
فیملی کورٹ اجرا کی کاروائی براہِ راست کسی دوسرے ضلع میں بھیج سکتی ہے۔ 2023 CLC 1300 Family court can directly send execution to another district. 2023 CLC 1300 |
2023
|
2023 CLC 1300 |
High Court, Lahore |
2023- |
اجراء درخواست پٹیشن |
|||||||
There is no cavil with the proposition that limitation for filing of an execution petition is not provided in limitation law and after enforcement of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (XII of 1972) first application for execution of a decree would be governed by residuary Article 181 of Limitation Act, 1908, which provides period of 03 years. From perusal of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 read with Section 48 of the C.P.C., it becomes clear that for filing first application for execution, 03 years limitation will apply and any subsequent application will be run by the limitation provided in Section 48, C.P.C. which prescribes period of six years. No other law is relevant or applicable. 2022 LHC 8234 |
2022 Civl
|
2022 LHC 8234 |
|||||||||||
2022 SCMR 1532 2022 SCMR 1532 |
2022 Civil / Criminal - Difference in Evidence
|
2022 SCMR 1532 |
|||||||||||
سابقہ واجبات کے لئے ملازم کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ ثابت کرے کہ جتنا عرصہ وہ ملازمت سے باہر رہا اس نے دیگر کوئی ملازمت نہ کی۔ PLJ 2022 Tr.c (Labour) 11 It is established rule that in order to obtain back benefits, onus squarely upon employee to prove that during entire period he remained out of service and was not doing any job after he was dismissed. PLJ 2022 Trc (Labour) 11 |
2022 Civil - Service
|
||||||||||||
Inheritence Limitation |
2022 SCMR 1558 2022 SCMR 1558 |
2022 Civil - Inheritence
|
2022 SCMR 1558 |
<p>Civil-RSP</p> |
Revenue cpc mflo muslim family law ordinance, 1961 |
||||||||
2022 SCMR 1433 2022 SCMR 1433 |
2022 Civil - CPC Second Appeal
|
2022 SCMR 1433 |
|||||||||||
Climate Change |
Violation of climate change is fundamental right. 2022 SCMR 1411 |
2022 Civil - Climate
|
2022 SCMR 1411 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan |
|||||||||
Maintenance Increase |
نابالغ کےخرچہ میں سالانہ دس فیصد اضافہ کمپاؤنڈ ویلیو پر نہیں بلکہ اس بنیادی رقم پر ہو گا جو کہ ڈگری کی گئی ہے۔ 2022 MLD (Lahore) 1762 Rate of annual increase in maintenance has also been fixed by legislature to be at 10% and the base value(i.e the maintenance fixed by the court). 2022 MLD (Lahore) 1762 |
2022
|
2022 MLD (Lahore) 1762 |
<p>Family</p> |
Lahore High Court, Lahore |
ten percent percentage |
|||||||
Precept / Transfer Application of Family Execution |
فیملی اجراء دوسرے ضلع میں ہائی کورٹ کی اجازت کے بغیر ڈسٹرکٹ جج کے حکم سے بھجوایا جا سکتا ہے۔ (T.A No. 71691/21 in Lahore High Court) Family Execution Petiton can be transferred by District Judge without order of concerned High Court (T.A No. 71691/21 in Lahore High Court) |
2021
|
(T.A No. 71691/21 in Lahore High Court) |
<p>Family</p> |
High Court, Lahore |
Shahid Bilal Hassan |
فیملی ٹرانسفر اجراء |
||||||
Offence add delete power of judge |
Adding / deleting of offence(s)---Report of Police Officer---At time of remand, Magistrate could direct Investigating Officer to add, delete or substitute an offence mentioned in FIR if circumstances so warranted, however he could not ask the Station House Officer (SHO) to submit report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. in a particular manner, that is, against a person he/she desires, or in respect of such offence(s) he wished for. 2021 PCr.LJ 293 |
2021
|
2021 PCR.LJ 293 |
remand stage |
|||||||||
Hiba |
مختار عام ہبہ نہ کر سکتا ہے چاہے مختار عام کو ایسا اختیار دیا ہی کیوں نہ گیا ہو۔ 2021 SCMR 1298 Gift cannot be executed by General Attorney whether such right is delegated in General Power of Attorny. 2021 SCMR 1298 |
2021
|
2021 SCMR 1298 |
hibba hibah |
|||||||||
All the relevant documents were not brought on record. The trial court was not denuded of power to summon all the necessary revenue record and also to summon the patwari so as to supply omissions from both sides. It was also the duty of two higher appellate Courts. It seems that it was an appropriate case for exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for bringing on record additional evidence. The suo motu exercise of this power would also have been fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. PLD 1992 SC 811 quoted in PLD 2021 Lah 287 [J. M. Ameer Bhatti-LHC] |
2021
|
PLD 2021 Lah 287 |
|||||||||||
Bonafide Purchase of Property |
Property was mortgage with Bank but there was no lien in revenue Record. Bona fide purchasers after consulting the revenue record purchased the same before the institution of suit and build homes thereon. In such circumstances, issue is liable to be framed and evidence must be recorded to establish the claim of bonafide purchase. 2020 CLC 1145 [J. Shahid Karim - DB] |
The Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 |
2020 Civil - Banking
|
2020 CLC 1145 |
<p>Banking Courts</p> |
High Court, Lahore |
Shahid Kareem |
mortgage, karim, |
|||||
Ss. 4 & 8---Civil Procedure Code (V OF 1908), O. VI, R. 16---Suit for administration and PARTITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ---Striking out OF pleadings---Question OF title or share---Scope---Petitioner filed suit for administration and PARTITION OF IMMOVABLE assets left by parties' common ancestors---Two OF THE respondents instead OF filing written statement filed an application under O. VI, R. 16, C.P.C. for deletion OF certain plot from THE list OF properties on THE ground that THE plot was gifted to THE ir predecessor through registered gift deed---Trial Court allowed THE said application---Validity---Petitioner, through her reply to THE application OF said respondents, had not only denied THE fACT um OF gift deed but also THE existence OF THE gift deed---High Court observed that in view OF THE explicit provision OF S.8 OF PUNJAB PARTITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT , 2012 , and in presence OF a dispute as to title in said plot, THE Trial Court was duty bound to decide THE dispute by framing issues and recording evidence before proceeding furTHE r in THE matter---Impugned order as well as THE application OF respondents were set aside, in circumstances. |
2020
|
2020 PLD 684 Lahore |
hiba |
||||||||||
اگر خریدار فریق معاہدے کی خلاف ورزی کرتے ہوۓ بقیہ رقم کی ادائیگی نہ کرے تو اسکی ادا شدہ رقم ضبط تصور ہوگی 2020 CLC 300 |
2020
|
2020 CLC 300 |
2020- |
suit for specific performance of agreement to sale sell consideration remaining advance earnest money |
|||||||||
Confession Extra Judicail |
ماورائے عدالت اعتراف جرم شہادت کا ایک کمزور ٹکڑا ہے اورجسے آزاد ذرائع سے تصدیق کی ضرورت ہے۔ Extra judicial Confession is a Weak Piece of Evidence and Needs Corroboration from independent Sources. |
CRPC / - |
2019 Criminal - Qanoon e Shahadat
|
2019 PCr.L.J 609 |
<p>Crl-General</p> |
11/2019-609 |
pcrlj |
||||||
Photo copy |
فوٹو کاپی والی دستاویز بھی قابل ادخال شہادت ہے۔ 2019 YLR 598 Photostat copies of documents are admissible in evidence so as to assist the court to decide the actual controversy. 2019 YLR 598 |
2019 Criminal - Civil - Family - Rent etc
|
2019 YLR 598 |
||||||||||
Doctrine of Necessity is Badly Adverse to Rule of Law. (PLD 2019 Islamabad 365) |
2019 Criminal - Civil
|
2019 |
writ petition special general |
||||||||||
پولیس ملازمین کے خلاف 155 سی کی کاروائی کے لئے استغاثہ نہ کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ البتہ اگر ٹرائل کورٹ یہ سمجھتی ہے کہ دوران تفتیش بد نیتی کی گئی ہے تو 155 سی کی کاروائی کی جا سکتی ہے یا پھر محکمہ کے افسران کو اس بابت لکھا جا سکتا ہے۔ 2019 PCrLJ 1172 Private complaint under 155-C Police Order 2002 is not maintainable against police officers. However, under the law there are two venues available against them. ; firstly, if trial court comes to the conclusion that the said investigating officer has interrogated the matter with mala fide intention or with some ulterior motive during the course of investigation, then it can order for prosecution under Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002. Secondly, an application may be moved to the high ups of the police department to avail the remedy available under the law. 2019 PCrLJ 1172 |
155 C of Police Order, 2002 |
2019 Criminal
|
2019 PCrLJ 1172 |
2019-1172 |
|||||||||
دفعہ 493 ضابطہ فوجداری کے تحت پراسیکیوشن کیس کو سرکاری وکیل / پراسیکیوٹر چلاتا ہے۔ مدعی کا پرائیویٹ وکیل پراسکیوٹر کی ہدایات پر کیس لڑے گا۔ 2019 PcrLJ 1241 Under S. 493, Cr.P.C., it was only Public Prosecutor who had to conduct the prosecution and if there was any private counsel, engaged by the complainant, he was required to act under the instructions of the Public Prosecutor. 2019 PCrLJ 1241 |
CRPC - 493 |
2019 Criminal
|
2019 PCrLJ 1241 |
<p>Criminal</p> |
2019-1241 |
crpc cr.pc |
|||||||
QSO - Cross Examination in Criminal Cases |
فوجداری مقدمات میں جرح نہ کرنا جرم تسلیم کرنے کے ضمرے میں نہیں آتا۔ PLD 2019 SC 64 No cross examination does not mean to admit guilt in criminal cases. (PLD 2019 SC 64) |
NK |
2019 Criminal
|
PLD 2019 SC 64 |
2019 |
||||||||
Identification |
شناخت پریڈ کے معاملات میں یہ بات بھی اہم ہے کہ وقت کے ساتھ یاد داشت کم ہو جاتی ہے لہذا جلد از جلد شناخت پریڈ کی کاروائی ہونی چاہیئے۔ A crowded ceremony would provide little space/opportunity to the complainant to remember the faces and names of the participants and thus once the source of information about appellants’ participation in the crime is found suspect it would be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of a vulnerable witness alone, particularly when the appellants were not arrested alongside the co-accused. |
2019 Criminal
|
2019 SCMR 1412 |
Asif Saeed Khosa J. |
2019-1412 |
parade |
|||||||
انسانی جان کو نقصان پہنچانے والے فتوے دینے والے پر فوجداری کاروائی ہوگی. (سپریم کورٹ اف پاکستان) PLD 2019 SC 318 |
2019 Criminal
|
PLD 2019 SC 318 |
2019-318 |
||||||||||
جب استغاثہ کے اپنے بیانات میں تضاد ہو اور عدالت گواہان کے بیانات کو قابل اعتبار نہ سمجھے تو ملزم کو محض اس کے بیان پر سزا نہیں دی جا سکتی۔ PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 577 When there is a contradiction in the statements of the prosecution and the court does not consider the statements of the witnesses to be reliable, the accused cannot be punished merely on such statements. PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 577
|
2019 Criminal
|
PLJ 2019 Cr.C 577 |
2019 |
general |
|||||||||
Benifit of Doubt to Accused |
Benefit of Slightest Doubt must go to Accused. (2019 SCMR 652) |
2019 Criminal
|
2019 SCMR 652 |
2019 |
|||||||||
Private Complaint along with other Important Points |
In this judgment principles governing summoning/non-summoning of accused in private complaint case; scope of inquiry and investigation and duty of the court in this respect; criminal conspiracy; relevance and probative value of press clippings and statements recorded by Commissions of Inquiries, at pre-trial stage have been discussed. 2019 PCrLJ 665 |
2019 Criminal
|
2019 PCrLJ 665 |
2019 |
|||||||||
Co-Owner |
مشترکہ حصہ دار / کھاتہ شریک کےخلاف قبضہ کا مقدمہ نہیں کیا جا سکتا صرف تقسیم کا مقدمہ کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ 2019 SCMR 84 Suit for possession cannot be filed against a joint shareholder / co-sharer, only a suit for partition can be sued. 2019 SCMR 84 |
2019
|
2019 SCMR 84 |
2019 |
co owner sharer سول |
||||||||
NK - Approach to Court |
کوئی بھی متاثرہ شخص کسی فیصلہ کے خلاف اپیلیٹ فورم سے رجوع کر سکتا ہے، قطع نظر اس کے کہ وہ اس مقدمہ میں فریق تھا یا نہیں۔ Any Aggrieved Person can approach an Appellate Forum, irrespective of the fact that he was party in the lis or not. 2019 SCMR 648 |
NK |
2019
|
2019 SCMR 648 |
<p>NK</p> |
Supreme Court of Pakistan |
2019 |
criminal |
|||||
فیملی کورٹ بچوں کا خرچہ مقرر کرنے کے لیے کسی بھی ادارہ کو ریکارڈ کےساتھ پیش ہونے کا سمن کرسکتی ہے۔ 2019 PLD 102 Lahore Family court can summon records of any department or institution for determination of maintenance of minors. 2019 PLD 102 Lahore |
2019
|
2019-102 |
evidence |
||||||||||
Father can become Guardian of Child with the permission of court, Mother is Natural Guardian. 2019 PCrLJ Islamabad 109 |
2019
|
2019 PCrLJ Islamabad 109 |
2019-109 |
Guardian, guardianship, father guardian father, mother guardian mother, lawful guardian, section 7 of guardian ward act, |
|||||||||
CRPC 426, 428 - Transfer of Case |
عدالت عالیہ کے تین رکنی فل بینچ نے فیصلہ دیا ھے کہ دفعہ 526 ض ف کے مطابق کسی ضلع کے سیشن جج کے پاس یہ اختیار نہیں کے وہ اپنے ماتحت کسی ایڈیشنل سیشن جج سے کوئی بھی ٹرائل یا درخواست ضمانت وغیرہ withdraw کر کے وہ کیس کسی دوسرے ایڈیشنل سیشن جج کو entrust کر دے۔ یہ اختیار دفعہ 528 ض ف کے تحت صرف عدالت عالیہ کے پاس ھے۔ تاہم سیشن جج دفعہ 526 ض ف کے تحت اپنے ماتحت مجسٹریٹ سے کوئی بھی ٹرائل یا درخواست ضمانت وغیرہ withdraw کر کے کسی دیگر مجسٹریٹ کو entrust کر سکتا ہے۔ PLJ 2019 Cr.C 164 Session Judge has no power to withdraw any bail or trail from Additional Judge except from Magistrates. This right is of High Court. PLJ 2019 Cr.C 164 |
2019
|
PLJ 2019 Cr.C 164 |
<p>Bail</p> |
2019-164 |
t.a ta |
|||||||
پولیس کی حراست میں اعترافِ جرم کی کوئی اہمیت نہیں چاہے وہ میڈیا کےسامنے ہی کیوں نہ ہو۔ PLD 2019 SC 196 Confession before Police has no value even it is made before media. PLD 2019 SC 196 |
2019
|
PLD 2019 SC 196 |
<p>Criminal</p> |
2019-196 |
admission;concead, arest, custody |
||||||||
کھاتہ شریک کا قبضہ سب حصہ داروں کا قبضہ شمار ہوگا۔ 2019 SCMR 567 |
2019
|
2019 SCMR 567 |
2019 |
||||||||||
If an accused person admitted to bail is subsequently declared a proclaimed offender or non-bailable warrants for his arrest are issued then such declaration or issuance of non-bailable warrants ipso facto amounts to cancellation of that accused person's bail. 2019 SCMR 1641 |
2019
|
2019 SCMR 1641 |
|||||||||||
نکاح ہوگیا لیکن رخصتی نہیں ہوئی۔طلاق کی صورت میں بیوی آدھے حق مہر کی حقدارہے۔ جبکہ خلع کیصورت میں حق مہر کی حقدار نہ ہوگی۔ 2019 YLR 1945 |
2019
|
2019 YLR 1945 |
|||||||||||
اشتہاری کا شناختی کارڈ بلاک کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ 2019 PCrLJ 126 CNIC of absconder can be blocked. 2019 PCrLJ 126 |
2019
|
2019 PCrLJ 126 |
proclaimed offender po p.o proclamation id card block |
||||||||||
Guardianship - Habeas even if Guardian Petition is pending |
گارڈین درخواست کے زیر سماعت ہونے کے باوجود بھی ہائیکورٹ میں 491 ضابطہ فوجداری کے تحت نابالغ کی کسٹڈی کسی حقدار شخص کو دی جا سکتی ہے۔ 2018 SCMR 427 The custody of a minor can be given under Section 491 CrPC by the High Court even the guardian petition is pending. 2018 SCMR 427 |
Cr.PC491 |
2018 Criminal - Guardian
|
2018 SCMR 427 |
2018-427 |
ward act crpc minor son daughter |
|||||||
FIR - without comments from Police |
جسٹس آف پیس کے پاس اختیار ہے کہ جب اس کے پاس اندراج مقدمہ کی پٹیشن دائر کی جائے اور بادی النظر میں قابل دست اندازی پولیس جرم بنتا ہو تو بغیر پولیس کمنٹس منگوائے ہی اندراج مقدمہ کا حکم دے سکتا ہے۔
A Justice of the Peace has the power to order a registration case without calling for the police comments when petitoin for registration of case prima facie discloses cognizable police offence. PLD 2018 Bal 17 |
154 Cr.PC |
2018 Criminal - First Information Report
|
PLD 2018 Bal 17 |
High Court, Balochistan |
2018-17 |
|||||||
Judicial Proceedings, Presumption of Truth |
عدالت کاروائی کے متعلق یہ سمجھا جائے گا کہ وہ حقیقت اور سچائی پر مبنی ہے۔ 2018 CLC 1482 Lahore Presumption of truth is to the judicial proceedings. |
129(e) QSO, 1984 |
2018 Criminal - Civil etc
|
2018 CLC 1482 (Lahore) |
High Court - Lahore |
2018-1482 |
criminal rsp regional special courts all |
||||||
Dispense with -- Fair Trial |
ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری میں ملزم کی حاضری ضروری نہ ہے۔ 2018 YLR 323 Lahore
Presence of accused is not necessary in Pre-Arrest Bail. 2018 YLR 323 Lahore |
498, 10-A |
2018 Criminal
|
2018 YLR 323 (Lahore) |
Ahmad Raza Gillani |
Muhammad Shafique vs. State |
2018-323 |
||||||
Appeal Criminal - |
اگر دو ملزمان کو ایک ہی الزام کے تحت سزا ہوئی ہے اور ایک ملزم اپیل میں بری ہو جاتا ہے تو دوسرا بھی بریت کا حقدار ہے چاہے اس نے اپیل دائر نہ بھی کی ہو۔ 2018 SCMR 344 If two accused persons have been convicted under the same charge and one accused is acquitted on appeal, the other is also entitled for acquittal even if he has not filed an appeal.
2018 SCMR 344
|
Cr.PC417 |
2018 Criminal
|
2018 SCMR 344 |
2018-344 |
417 ( 2 ) cr.pc crpc |
|||||||
Medical Report |
میڈیکل رپورٹ کسی ملزم کو وقوعہ سے نہیں جوڑتی بلکہ میڈیکل رپورٹ سے صرف زخم کی نوعیت اور استعمال کیے گئے اسلحے کے بارے میں پتہ چلتا ہے۔ 2018 PCrLJ 147 Note 120 |
2018 Criminal
|
2018 PCrLJ 147 Note 120 |
2018-147-120 |
mlr mlc certificate |
||||||||
انسداد دہشتگردی کے قانون کا ذاتی دشمنی پر کیے جانے والے قتل پر اطلاق نہ ہوتا ہے۔ PLD 2018 SC 178 The Anti-Terrorism Act does not apply to personal enmity killings. PLD 2018 SC 178 |
Application of ATA |
2018 Criminal
|
PLD 2018 SC 178 |
2018-178 |
terrorism act 1997 |
||||||||
Daily diary was important piece of evidence, which showed the movement of police party before arresting the accused. Absence of such evidence cut the root of the entire prosecution case. (2018 YLR Note 292) |
2018 Criminal
|
2018-292 |
|||||||||||
Delay in lodging FIR is Fatal and Creates Suspicion in the Occurence and its Truthfulness. 2018 SCMR 326 2018 SCMR 313 2018 SCMR 21 2018 PLD 17 2018 PLD 17 2018 YLRN 3 2018 PCrLJ 153 2018 PCrLJ 140 2018 PCrLJ 12 2018 YLR 477 2018 YLR 395 2018 YLR 356 2018 YLR 289 2018 YLR 207 2018 PCrLJ 177 2018 PLD 151 2018 YLR 482 2017 YLR 1270 2017 PCrLJ 1491 2017 PCrLJ 1198 2017 PCrLJ 594 2017 YLR 318 2017 YLR 436 2016 SCMR 1283 2016 SCMR 1254 2016 SCMR 1241 2016 SCMR 787 2016 SCMR 267 2016 SCMR 141 2016 SCMR 66 2016 PLD 872 2016 CLD 418 |
2018 Criminal
|
2018-326 |
|||||||||||
When Application of 491 Cr.P.C. is Maintainable for Recovery of Custody. 'Immediate threat to Life or Health'. 2018 MLD 369 2018 MLD 1386 2018 SCMR 427 2013 MLD 1625 2010 MLD 42 2008 MLD 751 2003 PCRLJ 1756 2015 PCRLJ 875 2014 PCRLJ 907 2009 MLD 258 PLD 2012 SC 758 |
2018 Criminal
|
2018-369 |
guardian |
||||||||||
Sec 324-PPC Motive is not necessary for the purpose of commission of capital offence. (2018 MLD 534 (F) |
2018 Criminal
|
2018-534 |
|||||||||||
No Writ against Anti Terrorism Court Decision |
انسداد دہشتگردی عدالت کے کسی بھی عبوری حکم کے خلاف ہائیکورٹ میں رٹ نہیں ہو سکتی۔ PLD 2018 Lahore 836 No Writ can be filed against Anti Terrorism Court interlocutory decision. PLD 2018 Lahore 836 |
2018 Criminal
|
2018-836 |
||||||||||
Guardianship - Preferential Right of Father |
باپ کو بچے کی حضانت کا زیادہ حق حاصل ہے۔ 2018 SCMR 590 The father has the more preferential right of custody of the child. 2018 SCMR 590 |
2018 Civil - Guardian
|
2018 SCMR 590 |
2018-590 2018-649 |
guardian and wards act 1886
|
||||||||
Judgment, Different View |
ہائی کورٹ کے سابقہ بنچ کا فیصلہ آئندہ کے بینچ پر ماننا لازم ہو گا۔ لیکن اگر کوئی دوسرا بنچ الگ فیصلہ دینا چاہے تو ایسی صورت میں لارجر بنچ کے تشکیل کی درخواست دینی ہو گی۔ 2018 SCMR 1474 Earlier judgment of an equal bench of the High Court on the same point was binding on subsequent Bench, if subsequent bench tended to take a different view, it had to request for the constitution of larger Bench. 2018 SCMR 1474 |
36 (3) of Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
2018 Civil - Criminal all etc
|
2018 SCMR 1474 |
Ejaz Afzal Khan, Maqbool Baqar & Faisal Arab |
Messers WAK Limited Multan Road, Lahore VS. Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore & others |
2018-1474 |
Special rsp civil all general |
|||||
Dowery Articles - Counter Claim by Husband |
سونے کے زیورات کے بارے میں شوہر کا جواب دعویٰ، چاہے تحریری بیان میں اس کا ذکر بھی ہو تب بھی فیملی کورٹ کے دائرہ اختیار میں نہیں آتا۔ 2018 CLC 1350 Lahore Counter Claim of Husband about Gold Ornaments, whether mentioned in Written Statement does not fall in Family Court Jurisdiction. 2018 CLC 1350 LHR |
(Oaths Act 9, 10) (QSO 163) (Family Act 5, 9) (Dowry & Bridal Gifts Act 5) |
2018
|
2018 CLC 1350 |
Jawad Hassan J. |
Asif Ali vs ADJ Faisalabad Etc. |
2018-1350 |
سونا۔ سامان جہیز / کلیم / خاوند dowry |
|||||
1 (10) CPC in 12 (2) CPC |
ایسا کوئی بھی شخص جس کا کاز آف ایکشن / بنائے دعوی میں کوئی حق ہو کسی بھی ججمنٹ ۔ ڈگری ۔ آرڈر کی بابت عزرداری کے ذریعے چیلنج کر سکتا ہے۔ Any person having interest in the cause of action could challenge the validity of judgment, decree or order under section 12(2) CPC. |
1(10) CPC in 12(2) CPC |
2018
|
2018 CLC 1519 (Peshawar) |
2018-1519 |
||||||||
12 (2) CPC, 1908 |
درخواست عزرداری میں ریگولر ٹرائل ضروری نہ ہے۔ کورٹ ایسی درخواست کو بغیر تنقیحات اور بغیر شہادت ریکارڈ کئے بھی فیصلہ کر سکتی ہے۔ 2018 CLC 1471 Sindh Regular Trial is not necessary in Application u/sec 12(2) CPC. Court could dispose of such application without framing of issues and recording of evidence of parties. 2018 CLC 1471 Sindh
|
12(2) CPC, 1908 |
2018
|
2018 CLC 1471 (Sindh) |
2018-1471 |
||||||||
Novation of Agreement |
Once agreement is novated (novation) enforcement of earlier agreement could not be sought unless expressly stipulated in fresh agreement. (2018 SCMR 1586) |
62Contract Act, 1872 |
2018
|
2018 SCMR 1586 |
Mushir Alam, Faisal Arab and Munib Akhtar JJ. |
Haji Baz Muhammad Khan & another vs Noor Ali & Another |
2018-1586 |
Contract Act, novation, novated, agreement, prjudice, stipulated, epressly |
|||||
Plaint - Amendment |
اگر دعویٰ کی ترمیم میں ڈرافٹنگ مشکل ہو تو دعویٰ واپس لے کر دوبارہ دائر کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ 2018 CLC 82 If amendment in plaint is difficult, the suit can be withdrawn and can be refiled. 2018 CLC 82 |
CPC 1908 Order 6, Rule 17 |
2018
|
2018 CLC 82 |
2018-82 |
re instituted reinstituted |
|||||||
Lawyer Power to delegate power to another counsel |
Power of Attorney---Lawyer's / counsel's power to appoint another counsel. 2018 CLC 1482 (Lahore) |
O.III, R.4 CPC |
2018
|
2018 CLC 1482 (Lahore) |
2018-1482 |
||||||||
سپریم کورٹ کبھی بھی اپنا سابقہ فیصلہ سوموٹو لے کر ختم کر سکتی ہے۔ 2018 SCMR 1218
|
2018
|
2018-1218 |
all |
||||||||||
Regularization of Daily Wagers / Contract Employees |
Regularization of daily wagers / contract employees of BISE were appointed on contracts which has been extended time to time and on minor artificial breaks which mean they were working against permanent nature seats. Leave to appeal was confirmed. 2018 SCMR 1405 |
2018
|
2018 SCMR 1405 |
Mian Saqib Nisar CJ, Umar Ata Bandial` |
BISE Faisalabad vs Tanveer Sajid & others |
2018-1405 |
bise borard of intermediate & secondary education lahore contract regulrization regula employee daily wages contract employees years appointment |
||||||
Document which was Confronted to the Witness and exhibited should only be considered in evidence. 2018 YLR 1557 |
2018
|
2018-1557 |
|||||||||||
Father is entitled for Custody of Minor Daughter when Mother had Contracted Second Marriage. 2018 YLR 1771 |
2018
|
2018-1771 |
|||||||||||
والدہ کی جانب سے بیٹوں کے نام کی گئی پراپرٹی کو سپریم کورٹ نے منسوخ کر کے بیٹیوں کو ان کا شرعی حصہ دلوایا۔ 2018 SCMR 2080 |
2018
|
2018-2080 |
shares |
||||||||||
Judge - Duty bound to know all Laws |
قانون سے واقف ہونا جج کی زمہ داری ہے وکیل کی زمہ داری نہیں کہ جج کو ہر قانون کی بات بتائے۔ (PLD 2018 SC 28) |
2018
|
PLD 2018 SC 28 |
2018-28 |
|||||||||
Resjudicata - Interlocutory Application |
کسی دعویٰ میں interlocutory application پر Res Judicata کااطلاق نہیں ہوتا۔ PLD 2018 SC 322 |
2018
|
PLD 2018 SC 322 |
2018-322 |
|||||||||
Fake Facebook Account |
کسی شخص کا جعلی فیس بک اکاؤنٹ بنانا سنگین جرم ہے۔ ضمانت کی درخواست خارج۔ 2018 YLR 329 |
2018
|
2018 YLR 329 |
2018-329 |
|||||||||
Hizanat of Minor |
بچے کی حضانت باپ کے حق میں ہوئی ۔ Custody of the Minor in favour of Father. |
Guardian |
2018
|
2018 SCMR 590 |
2018-590 |
||||||||
Custody of the Minor in favour of Father. (2018 MLD 591) |
2018
|
2018-591 |
|||||||||||
Custody of the Minor in favour of Father. (2018 YLR 649) |
2018
|
2018-649 |
|||||||||||
ایک باپ کی بیٹی کو نان و نفقہ کے علاوہ اسکی شادی سے لیکر سامان جہیز کی ذمہ داری بھی باپ کی ہے۔ 2018 YLR 669 |
2018
|
2018-669 |
|||||||||||
Family Court should always ascertain the source of income & earning of defendant then pass the order for maintenance allowance for minor & wife. (PLD.2018.S.C.819) |
2018
|
2018-819 |
|||||||||||
Guardianship - Custody of Minor, Mother second marriage |
ماں چاہے دوسری شادی ہی کیوں نہ کر لے اسے نابالغ بچے کی حضانت سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ 2018 MLD 8622 |
2018
|
2018 MLD 862 |
2018-862 |
|||||||||
Remand |
جن مقدمات میں تفتیش گرفتاری کے بغیر بھی ممکن ہو تو ان مقدمات میں ملزم کو گرفتار کرنا ضروری نہیں ہے۔ PLD 2018 Lahore 903 Arrest not necessary if investigation can be concluded without detention of accused. PLD 2018 Lahore 903 |
167 CrPC |
2018
|
2018-903 |
|||||||||
Mother solemnized second marriage, custody of daughter was given to father. 2018 CLC 767 |
2018
|
2018 CLC 767 |
|||||||||||
Mother solemnized second marriage, cannot be deprived from custody of minor. 2018 MLD 862 |
2018
|
2018 MLD 862 |
|||||||||||
Charas, recovery memo from accused 10 KG remaining recovered from co-accused, Recovery memo was not prepared at place of occurrence, therefore, benifit of doubt was extended. (2018 SCMR 1425) |
CNSA |
2018
|
2018 SCMR 1425 |
control of narcotics substances act 1997 |
|||||||||
Guardian |
During pendency of Guardian Petition, custody of minor(s) can be claimed under section 491 Cr.P.C. (2018 SCMR 427) |
2018
|
2018 SCMR 427 |
||||||||||
During pendency of case, name of minor can be added in ECL. PLD 2018 BAL 30 |
2018
|
PLD 2018 BAL 30 |
|||||||||||
Maintenance of Minors |
نابالغ کا خرچہ الاؤنس بڑھانے کے لئے درخواست فیصلے اور ڈگری کے بعد دائر کی جا سکتی ہے۔ PLD 2018 Lah. 916 Application for enhancement of maintenance of minor can also be filed even after the decision and decree. PLD 2018 Lahore 916 |
2018
|
HIC-L |
maintenance increase; allowance |
|||||||||
Agreement to Sale |
معاہدہ بیع سے کوئی حق تخلیق نہیں ہوتا جب تک کہ اسے رجسٹرڈ نہ کروا لیا جائے۔ 2018 CLD 911 |
2018
|
Agreement to sell sale, right of ownership |
||||||||||
Disputed Mutation |
اگر زمین کے انتقال کی درستگی مشکوک ہو تو اُس وقت تک اس انتقال کی بنیاد پر کوئی حق تخلیق نہیں ہو گا جب تک کہ یہ قانون شہادت آرڈر 1984کے آرٹیکل 17 اور 79 کے تحت ثابت نہ ہو جائے۔ 2018 YLR Note 138 103 |
2018
|
|||||||||||
ٹیسٹ ٹیوب بچہ کیونکہ بغیر نکاح کے پیدا ہوتا ہے اس لئے یہ خلاف شریعت اور خلاف قانون ہے۔ PLD 2017 FSC 78 Test Tube |
2017 Criminal - Family - Guardian
|
PLD 2017 FSC 78 |
2017-78 |
all general |
|||||||||
اگر تفتیشی کسی بھی گواہ یا مستغیث کا بیان لکھتا ہے تو وہ ملزم کا حق ہے کہ اس کی نقل ملزم کو دی جائے۔ If the investigating officer records the statement of any witness or the accused, it is the right of the accused to have a copy of it. PLD 2017 Lah 228 |
Criminal Procedure Code |
2017 Criminal - Fair Trial / Investigation
|
PLD 2017 Lahore 228 |
2017-228 |
161 crpc cr.pc cr.p.c |
||||||||
Limitation MLR |
میڈیکل چیلنج قانون معیاد ۔ دوبارہ میڈیکل تشکیل بورڈ کا آرڈر میڈیکل کے تین ہفتوں بعد بھی کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ 2017 MLD 1828 (C) MLR Challenge Limitation. Medical Re-Examination could be ordered beyond the period of three weeks. 2017 MLD 1828(C) |
2017 Criminal
|
2017 MLD 1828(C) |
2017-1828 |
mlc |
||||||||
Medical Examination could be ordered after 3 weeks. 2017 MLD 1828 (C) |
2017 Criminal
|
2017-1828 |
challenge |
||||||||||
8 Months Passed Evidence not Produced in Court, Accused Accquited. 2017 SCMR 19 |
2017 Criminal
|
2017-19 |
|||||||||||
Ossification Test prevailed over documents tendered by the accused. 2017 PCrLJ 474 Lahore |
2017 Criminal
|
2017-474 |
|||||||||||
Where some one dies inside home of accused, the prosecution has to shift initial onus. 2017 SCMR 564 |
2017 Criminal
|
2017-564 |
|||||||||||
Heirship |
وراثت کے غلط انتقال کی منسوخی کے دعوی استقرار حق کی کوئی معیاد نہیں ہے۔ 2017 SCMR 1476 |
Limitation |
2017
|
2017 SCMR 1476 |
2017-1476 |
mutation |
|||||||
نکاح ہونے کے بعد رخصتی سے پہلے بھی لڑکی شوہر سے خرچہ وصول کرسکتی ہے۔ 2017 YLR 2349 |
2017
|
2017 YLR 2349 |
2017-2349 |
||||||||||
Transfer of Property |
والدین اپنےبچوں کی حق تلفی کر کے اپنی جائیداد کسی دیگر کو ہبہ / گفٹ نہیں کر سکتے۔ 2017 SCMR 402 Gift by parents other than their children. 2017 SCMR 402 |
2017
|
2017 SCMR 402 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan |
2017-402 |
father mother sibling hiba transfer of property |
|||||||
MLR / MLC |
میڈیکو لیگل افسران کو (صرف) زخموں کی نوعیت کی وضاحت کرنی چاہیے۔ PLD 2017 SC 730 Medico Legal Officers should (only) describe the nature of injuries. PLD 2017 SC 730 |
2017
|
report certificate |
||||||||||
Confession |
ماورائے عدالت اعتراف جرم کرنا۔ قابل ادخال / قابل اعتبار ثبوت نہیں ہے۔ 2016 PCr.LJ 820 Evidence of Extra Judicial Confession is not Credible Evidence. 2016 PCr.LJ 820 |
CRPC / - |
2016 Criminal - Qanoon e Shahadat
|
2016 PCr.LJ 820 |
<p>Crl-General</p> |
11/2016-820 |
qso |
||||||
Limitation Writ |
No Limitation for Filing Writ Petition U/Art 199 COP 1973. (2016 YLR 1916), (2015 PLC (CS) 537), (2005 SCMR 126) |
2016 Criminal - Civil - Family - Guardian etc
|
2016 YLR 1916 |
2016-19162015-5372005-126 |
all general rsp special |
||||||||
وکالت تجارت نہ ہے، وکیل اپنے سائل کا دفاع کرنے کے ساتھ ساتھ آئین اور قانون کی بالادستی قائم رکھنے میں مدد کرنے کا بھی ذمہ دار ہے۔ (2016 CLC 10) Advocacy is not a business. 2016 CLC 10 |
2016 Criminal - Civil - Family - Guardian etc
|
2016 CLC 10 |
2016-10 |
||||||||||
Affidavit not public document |
Affidavit is not a Public Document its Contents should be Proved by Evidence. (PLD 2016 Lah 383) |
2016 Criminal - Civil - Family - Guardian - Rent - RSP etc
|
PLD 2016 Lah 383 |
2016-383 |
all general rules special |
||||||||
Fatal Injuries |
Specific Role of Causing Fatal injury to Deceased was Assigned. Bail Refused. PLJ 2016 SC 12 |
2016 Criminal
|
PLJ 2016 SC 12 |
2016-12 |
|||||||||
FIR, not neceassry to mention every detail |
FIR is not an Encyclopedia of offence it is not necessary that each & every detail should be mentioned in FIR. 2016 PCrLJ 1387 |
2016 Criminal
|
2016 PCrLJ 1387 |
2016-1387 |
|||||||||
Document |
Document which is Original and Relevant Can be Produced at Any Stage whether it is Trial Court or Appellate Court. |
2016
|
2016 SCMR 1 (B) |
2016-1 |
|||||||||
Gift - Marriage Gifts |
شادی پر ملنے والے تحفہ جات بیوی کی ملکیت شمار ہوتے ہیں۔ 2016 CLC 473 Lahore Gifts received on marriage are considered property of the wife. 2016 CLC 473 Lahore |
2016
|
2016 CLC 1473 |
<p>Family</p> |
bridal recovery suit for of bridal gifts dowry articles |
||||||||
اگر کوئی پولیس اہلکار کوئی جرم کرتا ھے تو اسے عام شہری کی نسبت زیادہ سختی سے نمٹا جائے۔ PLD 2016 SC 17 If a police officer commits any crime he must be penalized strictly than of a common citizen. |
2016
|
PLD 2016 SC 17 |
2016- |
regional special rsp |
|||||||||
Partition of Agricultural Land |
2016 YLR 35 2016 YLR 35 Peshawar |
2016
|
2016 YLR 35 Peshawar |
||||||||||
Delegated Powers |
Delegatee cannot further transfer powers unless authorised. PLD 2015 Isb. 36, PLD 2012 Lah 174, 2012 MLD 662, 2010 PLC CS 1150, 2009 CLD 1329, 2007 YLR 2179, 2007 CLC 657, 2005 PLC CS 551 |
2015
|
2015-36 |
||||||||||
For administration of justice, appellate court has same powers which the jurisdictional court have. 2015 PLR (Abbotabad) 9 |
2015
|
2015 PLR (Abbotabad) 9 |
|||||||||||
ایک مدعا علیہ کا جواب دعوی میں مؤقف دوسرے مدعا علیہ کا مؤقف نہ سمجھا جائے گا۔ 2015 SCJ 185 Written Statement of one defendant is not binding on other defendants. 2015 SCJ 185 |
2015
|
2015 SCJ 185 |
family etc all |
||||||||||
Khula Remarry |
عدالت سے لی گئی خلع کی ڈگری سے نکاح ختم نہیں ہوتا لہذا میاں بیوی دوبارہ کسی بھی وقت بغیر نکاح رجوع کر سکتے ہیں۔ PLD 2014 FSC 43 Remarriage |
2014 Criminal - Family
|
PLD 2014 FSC 43 |
2014-43 |
khula, marriage, fuck, illicit extra marital relations husband wife spouses khula dissolution of marriage re marry remarriage re-marr |
||||||||
Inheritence by Daughter / Sister |
بھائی نے بہن کو جائیداد میں شرعی حصہ سے محروم کر دیا بہن نے پچاس سال بعد دعوی کیا۔ عدالت نے خاتون کو شرعی حصہ دلایا۔ 2014 SCMR 801 |
2014
|
2014 SCMR 801 |
2014-801 |
|||||||||
Occupant |
غیر قانونی قابض چاہے جتنے عرصہ سے بھی کسی جائیداد پر موجود ہو عدالت سے ریلیف کا حق نہ رکھتا ہے 2014 SCMR 1351 Illegal occupent has no relief from court even he is in possession since 40 years. 2014 SCMR 1351 |
2014
|
2014 SCMR 1351 |
||||||||||
عدالت سے لی گئی خلع کی ڈگری سے نکاح ختم نہیں ہوتا لہذا میاں بیوی دوبارہ کسی بھی وقت بغیر نکاح رجوع کر سکتے ہیں۔ PLD 2013 Lahore 88 |
2013 Criminal - Family
|
PLD 2013 Lahore 88 |
2013-88 |
khula, marriage, fuck, illicit extra marital relations husband wife spouses khula dissolution of marriage re marry remarriage re-marr |
|||||||||
Deeper appreciation of evidence IN Suspension of Sentence could not be undertaken in a petition U/Sec 426Cr.P.C. 2013 SCMR 1403 |
2013 Criminal
|
2013 SCMR 1403 |
2013-1403 |
||||||||||
Crime empty having sent to FSL after Recovery of Gun, Report Doubtful. |
2013 Criminal
|
2013-18 |
|||||||||||
Father was managing proper education to the minors, custody was not disturbed. 2013 MLD 1002 |
2013
|
2013 MLD 1002 |
2013-1002 |
||||||||||
وکیل کو بحث کرنے کے لئے، پورا وقت دینا اور تفصیل سے سننا عدالت کا فرض ہے۔ (2012 CLC 899) |
2012 Criminal - Civil - Family - Guardian etc
|
2012 CLC 899 |
2012-899 |
lawyer wakeel advocate arguments rsp regional special general etc |
|||||||||
Narcotics Cases Landmark Judgement. PLD 2012 SC 380 |
CNSA |
2012
|
PLD 2012 SC 380 |
Ameer Zaib VS The State etc |
2012-380 |
control of narcotics substances act 1997 |
|||||||
Inheritence Grandfather to heirs of his deceased Son |
باپ دادا سے پہلے فوت ہوجائے تو تب بھی پوتے دادا کی جائیداد میں وراثت کے حقدار ہوں گے۔ PLD 2011 Lahore 23 If son dies before his father, even then the grandson(s) will be entitled to inherit the property of the grandfather. PLD 2011 Lahore 23 |
MFLO 1961 - Sec. 4 |
2011
|
PLD 2011 Lahore 23 |
<p>Civil Succession</p> |
2011-23 |
muslim family law ordinance, 1961 |
||||||
Disobedient Wife and Children are not entitled for any Maintenance Allowance. 2011 YLR 1632 |
2011
|
2011 YLR 1632 |
2011-1632 |
||||||||||
Maintenance of Minors |
It is a Duty of Grand Father to Pay Maintenance to the needy Children of his Son. PLD 2011 Lahore 610 |
2011
|
PLD 2011 Lahore 610 |
2011-610 |
|||||||||
Cheque |
کن صورتوں میں چیک ڈس آنر ہونے پر مقدمہ درج ہو تا ہے۔ 2010 SCMR 806 Pre Conditions to attract 489-F PPC۔ 2010 SCMR 806 |
489-F PPC |
2010 Criminal - Appeal Cheque Dishonour
|
2010 SCMR 806 |
<p>Criminal Appeal in Supreme Court</p> |
Supreme Court of Pakistan |
3-Judges (1) Khalial ur Rehman Ramday, (2) Mahmmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and (3) Rehmat Hussain |
Muhammad Sultan Appellant vs The State Respondent |
2009-12-15 |
signatures signs theft stolen stoppage of cheque defence balance bank account missing dishonestly issuing repayment of loan leave to business with complainant contra dismissed |
|||
Crime empty having sent to FSL after Recovery of Gun, No Value. 2010 PCRLJ 1389 |
2010 Criminal
|
2010 PCRLJ 1389 |
2010-1389 |
||||||||||
Custody of seven year child was given to father. |
2010 Civil - Guardian
|
PLD 2010 Kar 50 |
2010-50 |
||||||||||
No one can replace real mother. (2010 MLD 42) |
2010
|
2010 MLD 42 |
|||||||||||
Nikah |
دوسرا نکاح بغیر خلع یا تنسیخ نکاح کے زناء کے زمرے میں آتا ہے۔ Second Nikah without Dissolution of Marriage is Zina. PLJ 2008 CRC 1036 |
494 PPC |
2008 Criminal - Family etc
|
PLJ 2008 CRC 1036 |
2008-1036 |
khula, marriage, fuck, illicit extra marital relations husband wife spouses khula dissolution of marriage re marry remarriage re-marr all |
|||||||
Repeated offence |
Comission of repeated offence disentitle a person from grant of bail whether offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause. |
420, 468, 471 PPC & 5 ACE |
2008 Criminal - Bail Post Arrest
|
2008 PCr LJ 1010 (Peshawar) |
Syed Yahya Zahid Gillani J. |
Abdul Hameed vs The State |
2008-05-02 |
repeated crime |
|||||
Motive is Double Edge Weapon which can Cut the Throat of Both Dides. |
2008 Criminal
|
2008 SCMR 1049 |
2008-1049 |
||||||||||
Prepration for offence |
Preparation of offence not constitute any offence. |
2008 Criminal
|
2008 MLD 1529 |
2008-1529 |
|||||||||
Lack of motive or inability of prosecution to prove motive does not affect the imposition of Death Penalty. PLD 2008 SC 416 |
2008 Criminal
|
PLD 2008 SC 416 |
2008-416 |
||||||||||
MFLO - Conditional Entry in Nikahnama |
نکاح نامہ میں لکھی ایسی شرط غیر شرعی ہے۔ جس میں لکھا گیا ہو کہ شوہر طلاق یا دوسری شادی پر بیوی کو ہرجانہ ادا کرے گا۔ 2008 SCMR 186 Nikahnama condition that if husband divorce or solemnize second marriage is illegal. (2008 SCMR 186) |
2008
|
2008 SCMR 186 |
<p>Family</p> |
11/2008-186 |
||||||||
Terrorisam |
بدلہ لینے کے لئے یا ذاتی دشمنی کی بناء پر کیا جانے والا کوئی بھی جرم دہشتگردی کے زمرہ میں نہ آتا ہے۔ 2007 SCMR 1572 |
2007 Criminal - ATA
|
2019, 2007 SCMR 1572 |
2019 |
anti terrorism act 1997 |
||||||||
انکاری رپورٹ ثابت کرنے کے لئے پوسٹ مین کا بطور شہادتی / گواہ پیش ہونا ضروری ہے۔ NLR 2007 SCJ 689 In order to prove refusal / denial report, the witness of postman is necessary. NLR 2007 SCJ 689 |
2007
|
NLR 2007 SCJ 689 |
evidence |
||||||||||
Witness |
ایسے گواہ کی شہادت کی قانونی اہمیت نہ ہے جس کا نام ایف آئی آر میں نہ ہو لیکن بعد میں بطور شہادتی آئے۔ (2006 SCMR 1152 LB) |
2006 Criminal - Evidentiary Value
|
trial appeal |
||||||||||
Confession Extra Judicial |
Extra Judicial Confession must be Proved by Evidence of Very High & un-impeachable Character. (PLD 2006 SC 538) |
2006 Criminal
|
PLD 2006 SC 538 |
<p>Crl-General</p> |
2006 |
||||||||
Guardianship - Custody of Minor, Father and Mother second marriage |
ماں باپ نے دوسری شادی کر لی نابالغ کو نانی کے سپرد کیا گیا۔ 2006 YLR 1728 Father / Mother contracted another marraige, custody of minor was handed over to maternal grand mother. 2006 YLR 1728 |
2006
|
2006 YLR 1728 |
2006-1728 |
|||||||||
Specific Performance - Stamp Papers |
اقرار نامہ معاہدہ بیع کے اشٹام کسی بھی ضلع سے خریدے جا سکتے ہیں۔ 2006 YLR 2446 |
2006
|
2006 YLR 2446 |
2006-2446 |
stamp papers sell |
||||||||
نابالغ کا گارڈین مقرر کرتے وقت اولین ترجیح نابالغ کا مفاد ہو گا۔ 2006 YLR 547 |
2006
|
2006 YLR 547 |
2006-547 |
||||||||||
Quality and not Quantity of evidence was required to prove against the accused. |
2005 Criminal - Civil
|
2005 SCMR 1524 |
2005-1524 |
||||||||||
Offence add delete power of judge |
Add delete offences can be ordered by Magistrate. 2005 PLD 570 Lahore sif saeed khoosa J. |
2005
|
2005 PLD 570 Lahore |
||||||||||
If accused fails to establish its defence plea he can not be convicted on this ground. |
2004 Criminal
|
2004-2443 |
|||||||||||
Motive shrouded in mystery not a mitigating circumstances. |
2004 Criminal
|
2004-44 |
|||||||||||
انشورنس پالیسی وغیرہ میں نامزدگی محض علامتی ہوتی ہے تمام رقم تمام ورثاء میں برابر تقسیم ہو گی۔ 2004 SCMR 1219 |
2004
|
2004 SCMR 1219 |
2004-1219 |
||||||||||
طلاق کی صورت میں عورت سابقہ شوہر کے بچے کو دودھ پلانے کے عوض خرچہ وصول کر سکتی ہے۔ 2004 CLC 473, 1999 CLC 879 |
2004
|
2004 CLC 473, 1999 CLC 879 |
2004-4731999-879 |
<p>1999 CLC 879</p> |
|||||||||
If accused fails to establish its defence plea he can not be convicted on this ground. 2003 SCMR 467 |
2003 Criminal
|
2003-467 |
|||||||||||
If a matter is Decided on Oath at Holy Quran then no Appeal will lie. 2002 CLC 969 |
2002
|
2002-969 |
|||||||||||
عدالتی بیلف سے غلط رویہ بھی توہین عدالت کے زمرے میں اتا ہے۔ 2001 PCrLJ 798 Irresponsible behavior of police with court bailiff is also a kind of contemt of court. 2001 PCrLJ 798 |
2001 Criminal - Family - Guardian - Rent etc
|
2001 PCrLJ 798 |
behaviour defamation defame insulting all general rsp special |
||||||||||
وکالت نامہ کے بغیر، کسی کیس میں پیش ہونا، مس کنڈکٹ کے زمرے میں آئے گا۔ 2001 YLR 2782 |
2001 Criminal - Civil - Family - Guardian etc
|
without poa power of attorney special general rsp |
|||||||||||
GWA - Compromise |
Compromise between the parties – Compromise or an agreement between the parties does not absolve Guardian Court from ifs basic responsibility to safeguard and protect the interest and welfare of the minor, (PLD 2001 Kar. 371) |
2001
|
PLD 2001 Kar. 371 |
<p>GWA</p> |
2001-371 |
||||||||
No party should suffer on account of wrongs committed by Judicial Functionaries. 2001 SCMR 424 (LB) |
2001
|
2001-424 |
|||||||||||
Site Plan loses its Evidential Value if it is not Prepared on the Pointation of a Witness. 2001 SCMR 424 |
2001
|
2001 SCMR 424 |
2001-424 |
||||||||||
Dispute relating to custody of minors. Respondent has no woman in his house who can look after children if given to his custody. Respondent claimed that he has a sister in his house who could look after children. Sister of Respondent could not be a substitute of mother and she could not provide love and affection to children which mother can, as lap of mother is God's own cradle for children. Mother was, thus, entitled to custody other minor children. P.L.J.2000 Pesh. 175 |
2000 Criminal - Guardian
|
P.L.J.2000 Pesh. 175 = PLD 2000 Pesh. 23 |
|||||||||||
CPC-O39 R1,2 / Interim Injunction |
جب تک عبوری حکم امتناعی مخصوص حکم سے خالی نہیں ہوتا، یہ برقرار رہتا ہے۔ 2000 MLD 1755 Unless interim injunction is vacated by specific order, it remain intact. 2000 MLD 1755 |
2000
|
2000 MLD 1755 |
<p>Civil-CPCCivil-SRA</p> |
11/2000-1755 |
civil procedure code stay |
|||||||
Dispute relating to custody of minors. Respondent has no woman in his house who can look after children if given to his custody. Respondent claimed that he has a sister in his house who could look after children. Sister of Respondent could not be a substitute of mother and she could not provide love and affection to children which mother can, as lap of mother is God's own cradle for children. Mother was, thus, entitled to custody other minor children. PLD 2000 Pesh. 23 |
2000
|
||||||||||||
Private Complaint |
اگر کوئی پرائیویٹ استغاثہ عدم پیروی خارج ہو جائے تو اسے دوبارہ فائل کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ 1999 PCrLJ 1870 Private Complaint can be filed afresh if dismissed due to non appearance. 1999 PCr.LJ 1870 |
1999 Criminal
|
1999 PcrLJ 1870 |
<p>Crl-</p> |
1999-1870 |
||||||||
Where father of minor was permanent resident of place "K" and the mother was also resident of same place, it could not be said that minor was ordinarily residing at place "H" with his paternal grandfather. Trial Court had dismissed application filed by mother on point without affording opportunities to both parties to adduce evidence on point of ordinary residence of minor, trial Court should have decided question of Jurisdiction only, thereafter. Constitutional petition was dismissed and Trial Court was directed to decide question of ordinary residence of minor accordingly. P.L.J.1999 Kar. 699 = 1999 CLC 1137. |
1999
|
P.L.J.1999 Kar. 699 = 1999 CLC 1137 |
|||||||||||
عدالت کے اندر وکلاء کے لیے مختص کرسیوں پر کسی اور شخص کو بیٹھنے کی اجازت نہیں۔ PLJ 1998 Lahore 569 Seats in courts reserved for lawyers. (1998 PLJ Lahore 569) |
1998
|
1998 PLJ Lahore 569 |
<p>General</p> |
11/1998-569 |
all |
||||||||
Criminal Appeal and Revision |
Revision petition u/S. 439-A Cr.P.C. not maintainable when appeal u/S. 417 Cr.P.C. can be filed against order of acquittal. (PLJ 1998 Lah. 530) |
1998
|
PLJ 1998 Lah. 530 |
Ghulam Muhammad v. Addl. Sessions Judge, etc. |
|||||||||
Criminal Appeal & Criminal Revision - Limitation |
Criminal Appeal not to be dismissed as time barred. in criminal case law of limitation should not be applied strict to senso because question of liberty of a citizen is involved. Held, rejection of application for condonation of delay not justified. (PLJ 1996 Cr.C. LAH 1179) |
1996 Criminal - Appeal
|
Ghulam Shabbir |
||||||||||
Whether in presence of step mother minor will be brought up in a congenial atmosphere. This factor per se is no ground for refusing custody of minor to father if, he is otherwise found entitled to it. If some safeguards are provided S.C. is of the opinion that this factor by itself does not-deprive father from obtaining custody of his minor son. In absence of any adverse circumstance S.C. cannot presume that appellant/father will not look after or bring up minor with love and affection or due care. If any time some circumstances seriously prejudicial to interest and welfare of minor are brought on record duly supported by tangible evidence respondent shall be free to move Court of competent Jurisdiction afresh on basis of a new cause of action or grievance. Appellant shall make minor available to live with his mother (respondent) at least two days every week till he attains majority. P.L.J.1996 SC (AJK) 230 = 1996 CLC 1534 |
1996 Civil - Guardian
|
P.L.J.1996 SC (AJK) 230 = 1996 CLC 1534 |
|||||||||||
No Criminal Revision if Appeal not filed |
Appeal against acquittal by any person against the order of any Court other than High Court is to be made u/S. 417(2-A) Cr.P.C. within 30 days. A revision filed against order of acquittal beyond limitation period of 30 days was not competent, as it could not be treated as appeal because of being filed after 30 days (thirty days) and u/S. 439 (5) Cr.P.C. when an appeal can be filed no revision by the party who could have filed an appeal can be entertained. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 1783 |
1996
|
PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 1783 |
Hidayat Ullah v. Abdul Majeed and another |
|||||||||
Limitations Act |
1995 SCMR 1347 According to Limitation Act: Article 150. Appeal from death sentence to High Court-7 days. Article 151. High Court order on original side-appeal-20 days. Article 154. Appeal to any Court other than High Court-30 days. Article 155. Criminal appeal to High Court-60 days. Article 157. Appeal from acquittal by State-6 days. To Supreme Court (special leave to appeal)-30 days. Limitation for filing appeal to Federal Shariat Court under Procedure Rules 1981, R 18(A)/22(A) is 60 days. 1995 SCMR 1347, Nazir Ahmed etc. 1995 SCMR 1347 |
1995 Criminal - Civil - Family - Guardian etc
|
1995 SCMR 1347 |
limitations |
|||||||||
QSO - Witness Child Witness |
بچے کی شہادت اگر سمجھے جانے کے قابل ہے تو سزا دینے کے لئے اس کو مانا اور اس پر یقین کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ 1995 SCMR 1615 Evidence of Child Witness Processing Sufficient understanding can be Believed and relied upon for Conviction. 1995 SCMR 1615 |
1995 Criminal
|
1995 SCMR 1615 |
<p>Crl-</p> |
11/1995-1615 |
punishment |
|||||||
NK - No Criminal Revision if Appeal available |
اگر قانون میں اپیل کرنے کی داد رسی موجود ہو تو نگرانی دائر نہ کی جاسکتی ہے۔ 1995 P.Cr.LJ 1369 No revision u/ss. 439 & 417 (1) Cr.P.C. can be filed when remedy by way of appeal is available but is not utilised. 1995 P.Cr.LJ 1369 |
CRPC-417CRPC-439(Revision Petition) |
1995 Criminal
|
1995 P.Cr.LJ 1369 |
<p>Crl-Appeal / Crl-Revision</p> |
Abdul Majeed etc. v. M/s. M. Ghulam Muhammad etc. |
11/1995-1369 |
||||||
Responsibility of Lawyer |
اگر کوئی کلائنٹ اپنے کاغذات واپس بھی لے جائے، تو وکالت نامہ واپس لینے تک، عدالت میں پیش ہونا، وکیل صاحب کی ذمہ داری ہے۔ (1994 SCMR 1948) Lawyer responsibility. |
1994 Criminal - Civil - Family - Guardian etc
|
1994 SCMR 1998 |
1994-1998 |
lawyer wakeel advocate duty poa power of attorney attorny |
||||||||
Minor children. Custody, District Judge observed that minors having attained age of 7 years respondent (father) was entitled to their custody. District Judge has failed to consider that fundamental criteria for deciding application for appointment of guardian and restoration of custody, is welfare of minors and personal law is subordinate to it. Custody of minors allowed to appellant (mother) P.L.J.1994 AJK 33 = PLD 1994 AJ&K 1 = NLR 1994 Civil 331 |
1994
|
P.L.J.1994 AJK 33 = PLD 1994 AJ&K 1 = NLR 1994 Civil 331 |
|||||||||||
Confession Extra Judicial |
قصاص اور سزائے موت کے کیسز میں ماورائے عدالت اعتراف جرم کی کوئی قانونی حیثیت نہ ہے۔ 1992 SCMR 398 (LB) Extra Judicial Confession is no evidence in a case punishable with Death as Qisas. 1992 SCMR 398 (LB) |
CRPC / - |
1992 Criminal
|
1992 SCMR 398 (LB) |
<p>Crl-General</p> |
1992 |
|||||||
Confession |
شریک ملزم کا اعتراف جرم بھی جو قابل قبول / قابل ادخال شہادت تھا کو بطور شہادت دیگر ملزمان کے خلاف سزا کی بنیاد نہ بنایا جا سکتا ہے۔ PLD 1991 SC 898 Confession of Co-Accused even which admissible, was not evidence and not bases of conviction of other accused. PLD 1991 SC 898 |
CRPC / - |
1991 Criminal
|
PLD 1991 SC 898 |
<p>Crl-General</p> |
1991 |
qso qanoon e shahadat - |
||||||
NK - Group Insurance & Inheritence |
گروپ انشورنس ترکہ نہیں بلکہ یہ نامزد افراد کے لئے ایک مدد ہے۔ PLD 1991 SC 731
PLD 1991 SC 731 |
CPC |
1991
|
PLD 1991 SC 731 |
<p>Civil-General</p> |
Supreme Court of Pakistan |
|||||||
No Criminal Revision if Appeal not filed |
Acquittal on complaint is not revisable but is appealable under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. (NLR 1987 Cr. 470) |
1987
|
NLR 1987 Cr. 470 |
Noor Gul. |
|||||||||
NK - Criminal Revision into Appeal |
بریت کے خلاف کریمنل رویژن / نگرانی فوجداری ساٹھ دنوں کے اندر فائل کی گئی تھی جسے بطور اپیل زیر دفعہ (2)417 ضابطہ فوجداری ٹریٹ کر لیا گیا۔ 1980 PCrLJ 1272 Criminal Revision treated as Appeal when filed in a complaint case from acquittal within 60 sixty days U/Sec 417(2) CrPC. 1980 PCrLJ 1272 |
CRPC-417CRPC-439(Revision Petition) |
1980 Criminal
|
1980 PCrLJ 1272 |
<p>Crl-Appeal / Crl-Revision</p> |
Karim Dad vs Muhammad Etc. |
11/1980-1272 |
||||||
Dispensation of Personal Appearance |
ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری میں ملزم کا پہلی تاریخ پیشی پر حاضر ہونا ضروری ہے اس کے بعد ضروری نہ ہے۔ PLD 1973 SC 874 In Pre Arrest Bail, presence of accused is necessary only on first date of hearing not on all dates of hearings. PLD 1973 SC 874 |
CRPC-498 |
1973 Criminal
|
PLD 1973 SC 874 |
<p>Crl-Bail</p> |
1973-874 |
|||||||
معیاد کاپی وصول کرنے سے شروع ہو گی۔ PLD 1972 Quetta 47 Copying agency is to inform the applicant to take delivery of copy on a certain day. Else period of limitation for purposes of appeal is to be computed from the date when copy is actually delivered to the applicant and not from the date when copy is ready for delivery. PLD 1972 Quetta 47 |
1972 Criminal - Civil - Family - Guardian - Rent etc
|
PLD 1972 Quetta 47 |
all rsp regional special ordinary general |
||||||||||
Criminal Appeal & Criminal Revision Powers of Court |
Criminal Appeal & Criminal Revision. Powers excercisable by High Court in all respects in appeal and revision are similar except that in appeal sentence cannot be enhanced and in revision, aqcquittal cannot be converted into conviction. PLD 1955 FC 20 |
1955 Criminal - Appeal / Revision
|
Crown vs Sultan Mehmood |
||||||||||
Theft by Husband Wife interse |
Husband and wife can be guilty of theft of each other's property under Islamic Law but not under English Law as husband and wife are supposed to have union of interest between them. (1869) 6 Bombay High Court Reports (Cr. C.) 9 Khatabai. |
1869
|
<p>Crl-</p> |
||||||||||
بے نامی جائیداد کے ضروری لوازمات 2023 SCMR 572 Essentials of Benami Transaction |
1
|
2023 SCMR 572 |
<p>Civil - </p> |
||||||||||
Guardianship |
جب بچے ماں کی تحویل میں ہوں تو دفعہ 25 لاگو نہیں ہوتی۔ 2000 MLD 1967 Child with mother, no petition under section 25 of Guardian and Ward Act. 2000 MLD 1967 |
2000 MLD 1967 |
<p>GWA</p> |
2000-1967 |
criminal |
||||||||
لے پالک بیٹا اور بیٹی متوفی کے شرعی وارث نہ ہیں مگر نان و نفقہ کے حقدار ہیں۔ 2010 YLR 1327 Lahore Adopted is not eligible of inheritence but of maintenance. (2010 YLR 1327) |
2010 YLR 1327 Lahore |
2010-1327 |
|||||||||||
Guardianship - Visitation |
باپ کو اپنی اولاد سے ملاقات کے لیے کم وقت دینا انصاف کے منافی ہے۔ 2018 MLD 574 |
2018 MLD 574 |
2018-574 |
meeting |
|||||||||
ماں کی وفات کے بعد نابالغ پر حق باپ کا ہے۔ 2018-SCMR-590 |
2018-590 |
||||||||||||
پولیس اسٹیشن کی حدودمیں کوئی وبائی مرض پھیل جائےتوSHO اسکی رپورٹSP اور ڈسٹرکٹ میڈیکل آفیسر کودینےکا پابندہے If any contagious disease spreads within the police station, the SHO is bound to report it to the SP and the District Medical Officer. |
|||||||||||||
Guardian - Custody |
Peshawar High Court defined custody as actual or constructive possession for the purpose of protection. |
Juma Khan v Gul Ferosha |
|||||||||||
The Punjab Regularization of Services (Amendment) ordinance 2019 issued. All the Contract Employees who have been Serving Continuously for the last Three Years Before or After 24.07.19 will be Regularized under this Ordinance. |
|||||||||||||
اگر پولیس کسی کو غیر قانونی طور پر حراست میں رکھتی ھے تو پولیس پر دفعہ 342/34 تعزیرات پاکستان اور 155C کے تحت FIR درج ھوگی۔ |
|||||||||||||
غیر ممکن کا مطلب ہے کہ زمین کے اس خاص حصہ پرکاشت ممکن نہ ہے۔ اور اب مزید یہ زرعی رقبہ نہ ہے کیونکہ اب اس پر آبادی۔ راستہ یا دیگر جو بھی وجہ ہو وہ غیر ممکن کے آگے لکھا ہوتا ہے ۔ جیسے غیر ممکن راستہ۔ غیرممکن آبادی وغیرہ وغیرہ An entry of "gair mumkin" on jamabandi of agricultural land means that the said part of land is not possible to be cultivated. Or in other words is no more agricultural. For reasons like it may be used for residential purpose etc. |
|||||||||||||
Chapter 9 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1889 provides for a detailed procedure for the partition of land holdings. Sections 110-126 of the Act confer right to a co-sharer to get his joint property partition without any restriction. Chapter 9 envisages two types of partition[i]. Firstly, a partition of joint holding by the owners of the land and secondly, partition of tenancy by the Court Tenants. Application for the partition of his share in the land or tenancy if the following conditions are fulfilled:
Among all the four conditions mentioned above, first condition is mandatory and this kind of occupancy can be established by fulfilling either of the other three conditions. A mortgagee cannot apply for partition unless he proves that he is entitled to it by custom or by terms of his mortgage |
General |
||||||||||||
bail in non bailable case where woman is accused. |
- women cases |
||||||||||||
*اطلاع برائے عوام الناس ۔*
2020 PCRLJ 249. 2021 PCRLJ 412. بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ اور پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے اپنے بلا فیصلوں میں قرار دیا ہے کہ بجلی چوری کے معاملات میں کوئی پولیس آفیسر مقدمہ درج نہیں کر سکتا ۔ چوری کے خلاف محکمہ واپڈا کا 17 گریڈ کا ملازم عدالت میں مذکورہ شخص کے خلاف درخواست دائر کرے گا۔ یاد رہے کہ جو پولیس يا واپڈا کا ملازم کسی شہری کے خلاف ایف آئی آر (FIR) درج کرائے گا، یا اس کو تھانے لے کر جائے گا تو ایسے پولیس اور واپڈا اہلکار کے خلاف بلترتیب تعزیرات پاکستان کی دفعات 166، 167، 182، 188، 211 اور پولیس رولز 2002 کے دفعات 155 ، 156 کے تحت کارروائی ہوسکتی ہے، جس کی سزا سات سال قید تک ہوسکتی ہے۔ اور ایسے پولیس آفسیر کے خلاف پولیس رولز کے دفعہ 172 کے تحت ہرجانے کا دعویٰ بھی ہوسکتا ہے۔ |
wapda lesco Balochistan |
||||||||||||
Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto --- Doctrine of lis pendens --- Scope --- Principle of lis pendens shall be applicable when one purchases from a party pending a suit where the same property is the subject matter and consequently ,the parties are bound by the final decision notwithstanding any intermediate alienation of the property ... 2023 SCMR 2158 |
|||||||||||||
دستاویز exhibit کرانے کا مکمل طریقہ کار 2023 PCrLJ 1806 A document can only be exhibited when it is relevant and admissible in evidence. Prior to exhibiting a document, question of its admissibility must be decided by the trial court. Method of exhibiting a document in evidence is elaborated. |
|||||||||||||
سوال: کیا فوجداری مقدمہ غیرمعینہ مدت تک التواء میںرکھا جاسکتا ہے؟
Section 344(1) explicitly states that the case must be adjourned to a specific date and the provision restrains the Sessions Judge from adjourning or postponing a case indefinitely. PLD2023Lahore334 |
|||||||||||||
اگر انتقال پر Cutting ہو، تو یہ چیز اس انتقال کو غیر قانونی قرار دینے کے لیے کافی ہے ۔ (2017 YLR 399). انتقال پر فروخت کنندہ کے دستخط نہ تھے، رجسٹر پٹواری یا اس کی مصدقہ نقل پیش نہ کی گئی تھی۔ تحصیلدار بطور گواہ پیش نہ ہوا تھا۔ فروخت کرنے کا کوئی وقت، تاریخ، جاۓ خریداری یا گواہ نہ تھا۔ انتقال ثابت نہ ہو گا۔ (2016 SCMR 862). کسی دستاویز پر محض نشان انگوٹھا تسلیم کر لینے سے دستاویز درست تسلیم نہ ہو گی۔ (2016 MLD 370). (2016 YLR 987). اگر دستاویز پر انگوٹھا اور دستخط کرنا تسلیم شد ہو، تو دعویٰ استقرار حق قابل رواں نہ ہے، بلکہ دعویٰ منسوخی دستاویز ہو گا۔ (2012 CLC 238). فراڈ کی صورت ميں، ہبہ کو چیلنچ کرنے کی معیاد، علم ہونے سے شروع ہو گی۔ (2005 SCMR 1859). ہبہ کو چیلنچ کرنے کے لئے 6 سال کی معیاد مقرر ہے۔ (2004 YLR 512). |
|||||||||||||
۔ مختار نامہ لکھنے کے لئے ایک ہزار کا اشٹام ضروری ہے ورنہ اشٹام کی کوئی قانونی حیثیت نہیں ہوگی۔ 2017 YLR 138 مختارنامہ دینے والے کی موت کے بعد مختارنامہ غیر موثر ہو جاتا ہے۔ 2017 YLR 138
مختارنامہ اگر بیرون ملک تیار کیا گیا ہو تو اس صورت میں بیرون ملک کے قواعد و ضبط کے مطابق تیار کیا جانا چاہئے NLY 2009 civil 241
مختارنامہ پر دو گواہان کی تصدیق لازمی ہے ۔ PLD 1996 LHR.367 |
|||||||||||||
2021 SCMR 7
Generally, in respect of sale of immovable property, time is not considered as of the essence of the Contract. However, parties may consciously strike a deal to make time essence of the contract by providing certain consequences for breach of reciprocal obligation casted upon them, in such cases, time is treated as essence of the contract. *اگر آپکی کسی جائیداد پر کوئی اور قابض ہے یا آپ نے کوئی جائیداد خریدی ہو اسکا قبضہ نہ مل رہا ہو تو مندرجہ ذیل طریقہ سے آپ قبضہ حاصل کرسکتے ہیں۔* *Specific Relief Act ,1877* مذکورہ بالا ایکٹ کے تحت آپ عدالت سے رجوع کرکے اپنی جائیداد کا قبضہ حاصل کرسکتے ہیں اور دعوی میں مذکورہ بالا قانون کی دفعہ 42 کا حوالا بھی دیں عدالت فریقین کو طلب کرے گی ضرورت پڑنے پر لوکل کمیشن بھی مقرر کرسکتی ہے۔ اس ایکٹ کے تحت دو طریقے ہیں۔ ایک section 8اور دوسرا section 9 کے تحت۔ قبضہ واپسی کے دعوی کرنے کی معیاد 6 سے 12 سال ہوتی ہے جبکہ کورٹ فیس مالیت کے مطابق ادا کرنے ہوتی ہے اور زیادہ سے زیادہ کورٹ فیس بمطابق شیڈول پندرہ ہزار روپے ہوتی ہے مزید راہنمائی کے لیے مندرجہ ذیل عدالتی نظائر ملاحظہ کریں۔ *2018 CCLN 40* *2018 CCLN 19* *2018 CLC 866* *2017 SCMR 1851* [02/02, 11:48 am] In terms of Section 51 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872); where a contract is dependent on discharge or performance of reciprocal promise or obligations to be performed or discharged. The Promisor need not perform his part of promise or obligation, unless the promisee, (here in this case the vendee) “is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise.” In cases arising out of sale of immovable property, a vendee seeking specific performance has to demonstrate his readiness and willingness to perform his part of reciprocal obligation as to payment of balance sale consideration. 2021 SCMR 7 [02/02, 11:48 am] +: 2021 SCMR 56 In the wake of supply/provision of natural gas as a new source of energy to the domestic and commercial consumers, the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 was amended through Criminal Law (Amendment Act) 2011 (Act XX of 2011) so as to incorporate a penal regime to cope with cases of theft, pilferage, interference and tampering, etc. with the distribution system and matters ancillary therewith, covering wide spectrum of products under the definition of petroleum. It provided a mechanism for prosecution of offences set out in the newly inserted chapter i.e. Chapter XVII A. Through Act No.XI of 2016, the parliament enacted The Gas (Theft, Control & Recovery) Act 2016 which came into force throughout Pakistan on 23rd of March, 2016. The new law comprehensively deals with the cases of theft, tampering with auxiliary or distribution gas pipelines and with meters thereof including causing wastage or damage thereto. It sets up a tribunal comprising a District& Sessions Judge to prosecute both offences as well as claims for recovery of loss to the public exchequer. A comparative analysis of changes brought about by the Act clearly illustrates that the new regime under exclusive jurisdiction solely deals with the cases of gas with no change in the generic character of the offences earlier enlisted under the Chapter XVII A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 except that it provided a new mechanism for assumption of exclusive jurisdiction by the Gas Utility Court to try offences as a Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), however, it required a complaint, in writing by a person authorized in this behalf by a Gas Utility Company. The offences listed above remained cognizable as well as non-bailable with only immunity extended to a domestic consumer, otherwise liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Code ibid. It is in the backdrop of above statutory changes, the petitioners sought annulment of First Information Report on the grounds enumerated above. [02/02, 11:49 am] +: There are no shortcuts in criminal prosecutions and it is certainly far less than expedient to pre-empt designated tribunals to exercise jurisdiction so as to try offences on the strength of evidence brought-forth by the prosecution, the only known method both to establish the charge as well as to vindicate a defence. Similarly, while an accused is certainly entitled to a fair trial under “Due Process of Law”, it is also sovereign attribute of State to carry out prosecutions through its agencies in accordance with law with a reasonable opportunity to drive home the charge against the offenders to maintain/enforce its writ and effectively uphold majesty of laws within the realm. It is far more important when at risk is a resource commonly owned by the people. Equality before law without equal protection thereof is a travesty. 2021 SCMR 56 [02/02, 11:49 am] +: It is an admitted fact that the allegation against the petitioners is that they resorted to indiscriminate firing without causing any injury to anyone; however, the deceased sustained only a single shot whereas none of the prosecution witnesses sustained even a scratch. It is no body’s case that the prosecution witnesses escaped from the firing of the petitioners due to some hurdle or safety measure. The occurrence has taken place in open and if there would have been any intent at the part of the petitioners, there was nothing which could restrain them from committing the occurrence on broader spectrum. During the course of investigation though recovery of four empties of pistol .30 bore and three empties of Kalashnikov were recovered from the spot but as no weapon was affected from the petitioners during the course of investigation, therefore, mere recovery of empties would be a question to be resolved by the trial court after recording of prosecution evidence. 2021 SCMR 63 [02/02, 11:49 am] +: There is a wide variety of offences both under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 as well as under various special laws that require prior sanction for prosecution for the purposes of assumption of cognizance by the trial Court, the requirement does not stand in impediment to the registration of First Information Report, arrest of an offender or commencement of investigation thereof as the clog of sanction transiently relates to the steps preparatory thereto by the authority designated under the Statute. 2021 SCMR 56 [02/02, 11:49 am] 2021 SCMR 63
Perusal of the provisions of 497 CrPC reveals the intent of the legislature disclosing pre-condition to establish the word “guilt” against whom accusation is levelled has to be established on the basis of reasonable ground, however, if there exists any possibility to have a second view of the material available on the record then the case advanced against whom allegation is levelled is entitled for the relief in the spirit of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. In the instant case, as no overt act is ascribed to the petitioners except the allegation of ineffective firing not supported by any recovery of weapon and as such the recovery of crime empties from the place of occurrence has no legal sanctity, therefore, the facts and circumstances narrated above brings the case of the petitioners of further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling them for the concession of bail. [02/02, 11:49 am] +: 2020 SCMR 73 The burden of proof to establish the gifts was on the beneficiaries of the gifts, not the donees. [02/02, 11:49 am] +: Section 42(1) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 (‘the Act’) requires the person in whose favour the land has been transferred/alienated to report the same to the revenue authorities, which in the present case would have been the donees of the gifts but they did not do so. And, subsections (6) and (7) of section 42 of the Act require that before passing an order sanctioning change in the register of mutations in respect of any right which has been acquired the person from whom it is acquired should be identified by ‘two respectable persons, preferably the Lambardar or members of Zila Council, Tehsil Council or Town Council or Union Council’ but the two said witnesses were not such persons. In the present case an extremely old man is stated to have gifted his property by excluding his five daughters. These unusual circumstances should have alerted the Revenue staff to be more cautious and before sanctioning the gift mutations they should have ensured the identity of the donor, should have obtained a copy of his identity card, should have obtained his signature and/or thumb impression, should on account of his advanced age and frail state of mind ensured that the donor knew that he was making the said gifts. In the circumstances it would also have been prudent to have issued notices to the donor’s daughters to bring it to their knowledge that their father was gifting away all his lands. The burden of proof to establish that the gifts lay on the petitioners, which they did not discharge. On the contrary there was sufficient material on record to suggest that the petitioners had acted dishonestly and gift mutations Nos. 449, 451 and 452 were illegally made in their favour. 2021 SCMR 73 [02/02, 11:49 am] +: It has become all too common to keep legal heirs deprived and to disobey judgments on the pretext that a higher forum has been approached even when the operation of the impugned order/judgment has not been suspended. Needless to state merely challenging an order/judgment does not suspend its operation. Probably the petitioners will now await the execution of the decree against them and file untenable objections therein, and if their objections are dismissed to commence another round of litigation assailing such order. Judgments and decrees of courts of competent jurisdiction must be abided by. 2021 SCMR 73 [02/02, 11:49 am] 2021 SCMR 69 Visit by the witnesses on the fateful day, cannot be viewed as improbable or unnatural. A father visiting his distressed daughter to mediate an ongoing dispute cannot be characterized as a witness arriving at the scene per chance. [02/02, 11:49 am] +: The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the ‘Constitution’) safeguards property (including inherited property) under Article 24(1) of the Constitution and protection of women and children is guaranteed by Article 25(3) of the Constitution. The Constitution sets out the goals which the people of Pakistan have set out for themselves in the ‘Principles of Policy’, which include the protection of ‘mother and the child’ (Article 35) and require the ‘promotion of social justice and eradication of social evils’ (Article 37). Depriving a mother and her child from their inheritance does not protect them but preys on them. Such conduct is a prevalent social evil and inherently unjust. It is expected that the organ and authority of the State will act in accordance with the Principles of Policy as provided by Article 29(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, claims by orphans and widows alleging that they have been deprived of their inheritance must be expeditiously decided by the concerned organ and authority of the State, including the courts. 2021 SCMR 73 [02/02, 11:49 am] + The revenue authorities must also be extra vigilant when purported gifts are made to deprive daughters and widows from what would have constituted their shares in the inheritance of an estate. The concerned officers must fully satisfy themselves as to the identity of the purported donor/transferee and strict compliance must be ensured with the applicable laws, as repeatedly held by this Court, 2021 SCMR 73 |
|||||||||||||
If a plaintiff withdraws from a suit or abandons part of a claim, without permission to file a fresh suit, he is precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim.
2011 YLR 2863, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 717 |
|||||||||||||
دوران عدت شادی ناجائز ہے۔ ایسا نکاح باطل ہو گا۔ 1992 SCMR 1273 |
Iddat nikah marriage |
||||||||||||
فوجداری مقدمے کی کارروائی کے اقدامات 1-ایف آئی آر 154 یا براہ راست شکایت 200 2-تفتیش 156 یا انکوائری 202۔ 3-بیان اور اعتراف کا ریکارڈ 161،164 (4) جسمانی یا پولیس ریمانڈ 167 ، ، ، 344…) (5) مندرجہ ذیل طریقوں کے تحت ، 173 کے چالان جمع کرانے؛ دفعہ 169 - جب ثبوت کی کمی ہو تو ملزم کی رہائی دفعہ 170-کیس مجسٹریٹ کو ارسال کیا جائے جب شواہد کافی ہوں تو ملزم کی عدم موجودگی میں شواہد کا 512 ریکارڈ
(6) ایف آئی آر کا خاتمہ… 561 A) (7) ادراک 190 (8) 204،204 عمل جاری کرنا ، (9) ناقابل ضمانت 496 غیر ضمانت 497 .. (10) 221 سے 240 تک چارج کی فریمنگ .. (11) تیز بری 249 اے ، 265 کے ، ، 561 اے… پراسیکیوٹر اور ملزم کے وکیل کی سماعت کے بعد اور وجوہات ریکارڈ کیئے جائیں ..) (12) قصور وار… .. 243 ،،،، 265 ای… استغاثہ کے ثبوتوں کا آغاز… (1) ملزم کا امتحان 342 …… دفاعی ثبوتوں کا آغاز ..340 ثبوت پیش کرنا…. فیصلہ… (2) 245 / 265H بری… یا سزا 245 (2) ، 265 ایچ (2) اپیل (1) اسسٹنٹ سیشن جج یا جوڈیشل مجسٹریٹیو سیکشن 408 کے ذریعہ منظور شدہ سزا کے خلاف عدالت کے سیشن میں اپیل (2) سیشن یا ایڈیشنل سیشن جج سیکشن 410 کے ذریعہ منظور شدہ سزا کے خلاف ہائی کورٹ میں اپیل .... |
Importants imps criminal procedure code crpc cr.pc |
||||||||||||
اراضی کی اصل پوزیشن طے کرنے کا اختیار محکمہ مال کے پاس ہے۔ 2021 MLD 119 |
Civil revenue land |
||||||||||||
اگر Pendency کے دوران دعویٰ Partly واپس لیا جائے تو نیا سوٹ فائل کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ اس پر Res Judicata کا اصول لاگو نہیں ہوگا۔ 2012 MLD 1795 |
|||||||||||||
2016 PLD 4 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT
DECREE OF CONJUGAL RIGHT
Family Court has jurisdiction to attach wife's property in Non-compliance with decree by wife. O. XXI, Rr. 32 & 33---West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 203-D---Shariat petition-Decree against wife for restitution of conjugal Rights --- Non-compliance with decree by wife-Jurisdiction of Family Court to attach wife's property or order her to make periodical payments to the husband for non-compliance with decree---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Decree passed by a competent court had great significance and sanctity in Islam---Order XXI, Rr.32 & 33, C.P.C. provided a mechanism for execution of decree/judgment delivered by Family Court, in the event that a spouse was not complying with such decree/judgment---Order XXI, Rr.32 & 33, C.P.C. were not against the Injunctions of Islam. |
|||||||||||||
اگرچہ کسی دستاویز کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے دو گواہوں کا ہونا لازم ہے ،لیکن اگر دستاویز لکھوانے والا یہ اعتراف کر جائے / مان جائے تو ایسے دستاویز کو دو گواہان کے ذریعے ثابت کرنا لازم نہیں بلکہ ان میں کوئ ایک کے ذریعے بھی ثابت کیا جاسکتا ہے ۔ VVVI. MUST READ JUDGEMENT.
There is no cavil to the proposition that for the purposes of proof of a document falling under the purview of Article 17 of the QSO, two attesting witnesses must be examined as per requirement of Article 79 thereof. However, the rigors and clutches of the said requirement envisaged under Article 17, read with 79 of QSO, subside where the execution of a document is admitted. In such like situation, the plaintiff is not bound to produce both the marginal witnesses in order to prove the execution of the agreement. Article 81 is an exception to the general rule that where a document is required by law to be attested, the same cannot be used in evidence unless two attesting witnesses are called for the purposes of proving its execution. The simple reading of Article 81 shows that where the execution of a document is admitted by the executant himself, the examination of attesting witnesses is not necessary. As the agreement in the instant case had been admitted in the prior suit filed by the respondent against the appellant, by recording statement before the Trial Court, the non-production of both the marginal witnesses is not fatal to the case of the respondent. Moreover, in terms of Article 91 of the QSO, presumption of genuineness is attached to documents forming part of the judicial proceedings.
Suit for specific performance of the contract based on an agreement to sell can be decreed even if the second marginal witnesses of the agreement is not produced by the vendee in compliance of Article 79 of QSO in cases which fall within the purview of Article 81 which is an exception to the rule contained under Article 79 of the QSO.
RSA No.230/2016 Muhammad Islam Versus Bagh Ali (deceased) through LRs |
|||||||||||||
جو ریلیف دعویٰ میں نہ مانگا گیا ہو، عدالت وہ بھی عطا کر سکتی ہے، 2022 PLD 73 SUPREME-COURT
O.VII, R. 7---Relief not specifically sought in the plaint---Whether such relief could be granted by the Court---In appropriate cases, the courts could mould the relief within the scope of the provisions of O.VII, R.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("C.P.C."), and were empowered to grant such relief as the justice may demand, in the facts and circumstances of the case. |
|||||||||||||
Identification Parade |
شناخت پریڈ |
||||||||||||
شناخت پریڈ Identification Parade |
|||||||||||||
باپ کو اپنی اولاد سے ملاقات کے لیے کم وقت دینا انصاف کے منافی ہے۔ 2018 MLD 574
ماں چاہے دوسری شادی ہی کیوں نہ کر لے اسے نابالغ بچے کی حضانت سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ 2018 MLD 862
کسی شخص کا جعلی فیس بک اکاؤنٹ بنانا سنگین جرم ہے۔ ضمانت کی درخواست خارج باپ کو بچے کی حضانت کا زیادہ حق حاصل ہے۔ 2018 SCMR 590 2018 YLR 649 2018 YLR 329
میڈیکل رپورٹ کسی ملزم کو وقوعہ سے نہیں جوڑتی بلکہ میڈیکل رپورٹ سے صرف زخم کی نوعیت اور استعمال کیے گئے اسلحے کے بارے میں پتہ چلتا ہے۔ 2018 PCRLJ 147 Note 120
سپریم کورٹ نے اپنے ایک حالیہ فیصلہ میں قرار دیا ہے کہ گارڈین درخواست کے زیر سماعت ہونے کے باوجود بھی ہائیکورٹ میں 491 ضابطہ فوجداری کے تحت نابالغ کی کسٹڈی کسی حقدار شخص کو دی جا سکتی ہے۔ 2018 SCMR 427
اگر دعویٰ کی ترمیم میں ڈرافٹنگ میں مشکل ہو تو دعویٰ واپس لے کر دوبارہ دائر کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ 2018 CLC 82
اگر دو ملزمان کو ایک ہی الزام کے تحت سزا ہوئی ہے اور ایک ملزم اپیل میں بری ہو جاتا ہے تو دوسرا بھی بریت کا حقدار ہے چاہے اس نے اپیل دائر نہ بھی کی ہو۔ 2018 SCMR 344
جسٹس آف پیس کے پاس اختیار ہے کہ جب اس کے پاس اندراج مقدمہ کی پٹیشن دائر کی جائے اور بادی النظر میں قابل دست اندازی پولیس جرم بنتا ہو تو بغیر پولیس کمنٹس منگوائے ہی اندراج مقدمہ کا حکم دے سکتا ہے۔ PLD 2018 Bal 17
قانون سے واقف ہونا جج کی زمہ داری ہے وکیل کی زمہ داری نہیں کہ جج کو ہر قانون کی بات بتائے۔ PLD 2018 SC 28
فیملی عدالت متعلقہ ایس ایچ او کو کسی بھی فریق کے درست پتہ کے تعین کے لیے حکم دے سکتی ہے۔ 2018 CLC Note 51
ماں کی وفات کے بعد بچوں کی کسٹڈی کا حق نانی کی بجائے باپ کا حق ہے۔ 2018 SCMR 590
سیکیورٹی کی رقم کا یہ مطلب نہیں ہے کہ کرایہ دار مالک مکان کو وقت پہ کرایہ ہی نہ دے۔ 2018 CLC 261
رہائشی علاقے میں سکول کی تعمیر کے خلاف دعویٰ حکم امتناعی دوامی ڈگری کیا گیا۔ 2018 SCMR 76
شوہر سابقہ تیس سال کا خرچہ نان نفقہ دینے کا پابند قرار۔ 2018 YLR 128
انسداد دہشتگردی کے قانون کا ذاتی دشمنی پہ کیے جانے والے قتل پر اطلاق نہ ہوتا ہے۔ PLD 2018 SC 178
فوجداری اور دیوانی کاروائی بیک وقت چل سکتی ہے۔ 2018 SCMR 839 2018 MLD 1773
کسی بھی قسم کے اسلحہ کی برآمدگی کی کوئی قانونی حیثیت نہیں جب تک کہ اس کی پازیٹیو فرانزک رپورٹ نہ ہو۔ 2018 SCMR 772
محکمہ سی آئی اے کا اختیار نہیں کہ وہ کسی جرم کی تفتیش کرے بلکہ اس کا کام ڈسٹرکٹ پولیس کی مدد کرنا اور جرائم کے ارتکاب کو روکنا ہے۔ 2018 P.Cr.Lj 590
زبانی نکاح کی وہی حیثیت ہوتی ہے جو کہ تحریری نکاح کی ہوتی ہے۔ PLJ 2018 Cr.C 130
اگر نابالغ کی کسٹڈی کا مقدمہ چل رہا ہو تو عدالت کے دائرہ اختیار میں ہے کہ نابالغ کا نام ای سی ایل میں ڈلوا دے۔ PLD 2018 Balochistan 30 |
|||||||||||||
شناختی کارڈ عدالت بھی بلاک نہیں کر سکتی ۔۔ PLD 2022 Lhr 756 PLD 2022 Lhr 39 |
cnic computerized national identity card c.n.i.c block court power of court to family criminal guardian execution cases father husband judgment judgement decree holder application petition pakistan ecl |
