Compensation being the just equivalent of the value of the plaintiffs

Badri Narain Prasad Chaoudhary and others v. Nil Ratan Sarkar (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 845 (Patna). Relevant portion from the said judgment is as under: “…the defendant is the smaller co-sharer and he is using the property as a shop-cum-residence. Equity requires that he should be given a preferential right to retain the whole of the suit property on payment of compensation being the just equivalent of the value of the plaintiffs‟ share to them.”


Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.525/2009

Exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C is very limited

Before considering the contentions of the parties on merit, we would like to mention here that the scope of interference with concurrent finding of fact by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C is very limited. The High Court while examining the legality of the judgment and decree in exercise of its power under section 115, C.P.C cannot upset a finding of fact, however erroneous it may be, on reappraisal of evidence and taking a different view of the evidence. Such findings of facts can only be interfered with by the High Court under section 115, C.P.C if the Courts below have either misread the evidence on record or while assessing or evaluating the evidence have omitted from consideration some important piece of evidence which has direct bearing on the issues involved in the case. The findings of facts will also be open to interference by the High Court under section 115, C.P.C if the approach of the Courts below to the evidence is perverse meaning thereby that no reasonable person would reach the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record.***


(1997 S C M R 1139)
Lahore High Court
C.R No. 2383 of 2009

Document can be a substitute for attesting witnesses

The relevant extract from Para- 9 of Hafiz Tasadduq’s case for ready reference is reproduced below:- “9.Coming to the proposition canvassed by the counsel for the appellant that a scribe of the document can be a substitute for attesting witnesses; the point on which leave was also granted. It may be held that if such witness is allowed to be considered as the attesting witness it shall be against the very concept, the purpose, object and the mandatory command of the law highlighted above. The question, however, has been examined in catena of judgments and the answer is in the negative.”

2012 CLC 2094
PLD 2011 SC 241
PLD 2015 SC 187

Lahore High Court
C.R No. 2383 of 2009

Rule 8 of Order of the C. P. C. is a rule of convenience based

Reported as PLD 1982 Supreme Court

Ordinarily all persons interested in a suit ought to be joined as parties. As against this rule 8 of Order of the C. P. C. is a rule of convenience based on reason and good policy and saves the trouble and expense which would otherwise have to be incurred in such cases. A’ suit filed with the permission to sue for and on behalf of numerous person. having the same interest under Order I, rule 8 is still a suit filed by the person who is permitted to sue as the plaintiff, and the persons represented by him do not by virtue of the permission become plaintiffs in the suit Such other persons would be bound by the decree in the suit but that is because they are represented by the plaintiffs and not because they are parties to the suit unless by express order of the Court they are permitted to be impleaded as such in their own capacity and are not allowed to suc in a representative capacity. Conversely and similarly it will be clear that the persons who are all sued in a representative capacity will not become parties to the suit as defendants, and if, therefore, they are not on record as such the question of bringing on record a legal representative in case of demise of any one of them does not arise.

C.R No. 186-M/2018

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, MINGORA BENCH

Settled law that the following conditions must be fulfilled in order to institute a representative suit

Limited and others reported as 2007 SCMR 74 as
following:-
“It is a settled law that the following conditions must be fulfilled in order to institute a representative suit:--
> Persons interested in the suit must be numerous.
>They all must have the same interest in the suit.
>Permission of Court under rule 8 shall be obtained.
>Notice must be given to all the persons whom. It is sought to represent.

Indian Supreme Court while interpreting Order I, rule 8, C.P.C. in the State of Andhra Pradesh vy. Gundugola Venkata Suryanarayana Garu AIR 1965 SC 11 laid down the following principle:--
Yo enable a person to file a suit in a representative capacity for and on behalf of numerous persons where they have the same interest, the only condition is the permission of the Court

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

.R No. 186-M/2018

As against this rule 8 of Order | of the C. P. C.

Ordinarily all — persons interested in a suit ought to be joined as parties. As against this rule 8 of Order | of the C. P. C. is a rule of convenience based on reason and good policy and saves the trouble and expense which would otherwise have to be incurred in such cases. A’ suit filed with the permission to sue for and on behalf of numerous person. having the same interest under Order I, rule 8 is still a suit filed by the person who is permitted to sue as the plaintiff, and the persons represented by him do not by virtue of the permission become plaintiffs in the suit Such other persons would be bound by the decree in the suit but that is because they are represented by the plaintiffs and not because they are parties to the suit unless by express order of the Court they are permitted to be impleaded as such in their own capacity and are not allowed to suc in a representative capacity. Conversely and similarly it will be clear that the persons who are all sued in a representative capacity will not become parties to the suit as defendants, and if, therefore, they are not on record as such the question of bringing on record a legal representative in case of demise of any one of them does not arise.

PLD 1982 Supreme Court 120 

“It is a settled law that the following conditions must be fulfilled in order to institute a representative suit:--
Persons interested in the suit must be numerous.
They all must have the same interest in the suit.
Permission of Court under rule 8 shall be obtained.
Notice must be given to all the persons whom. It is sought to represent.
Indian Supreme Court while interpreting Order I, rule 8, C.P.C. in the State of Andhra Pradesh vy. Gundugola Venkata Suryanarayana Garu AIR 1965 SC 11 laid down the following principle:--
Yo enable a person to file a suit in a representative capacity for and on behalf of numerous persons where they have the same interest, the only condition is the permission of the Court".

2007 SCMR 74

Litigant on the question of limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

“In the present case, the High Court gave good reasons for declining to condone the delay. It held that the ground taken by the appellants in their application under section 5 of the Limitation Act that they could not file the appeal within time as they had entered into correspondence with litigating departments and the Solicitor was quite vague and reliance was also placed in a judgment of this Court reported in 1990 SCMR 1059 wherein it was held that “It is well-settled principle of law that under section 5 of the Limitation Act, delay of each day is to be explained” and further that, the Government cannot be treated differently than a private litigant on the question of limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

Ref.

PLD 1995 SC 396
Cr. Acq. Appeal No. 243 of 2009

Sale transaction

Section 54
Essential elements of Sale:
(i)    The parties.
(ii)    The subject matter
(iii)    The transfer or conveyance
(iv)    Price – consideration.
If any one of the above elements is missing, it is not a “sale transaction”. Ownership on the one hand and price on the other must exist.

2012 CLC 125 (Baluchistan)

Provisions contained in section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908

The provisions contained in section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 had been declared to be repugnant to injunction of Islam, while the logic behind such declaration was that no lawful owner could be deprived of his right merely by efflux of time nor a person enjoying possession for a long time could be awarded with premium of ownership. The provisions contained in section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Civil Revision No.350-P/2008

Interim/urgent relief

Litigant compelled to file suit/appeal during summer vacations for enabling him to seek some interim relief, which was imperative and of utmost expediency to prevent irreparable and irreversible loss and injury. Section 4 of Limitation Act, 1908 gave such a litigant a vested right to file the suit/appeal on the day of the re-opening of the court, but if the litigant sought some urgent relief during the closure of court, he could not be expected to sit idle (till the re-opening of the court) and watch irreparable, colossal and irretrievable loss being caused to him, and refrain from exercising his right of filing suit/appeal for the purpose of obtaining interim relief.

PLD 2014 S.C. 783

S.12 of Limitation Act, 1908, are applicable to proceedings under Financial Institutions

Though provisions of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908, have not been made applicable to proceedings under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, however, the same has not excluded applicability of S. 12 of Limitation Act, 1908. In absence of such exclusion, provisions of S.12 of Limitation Act, 1908, are applicable to proceedings under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.

2014 CLD 1020

F.I.R.O. 2001

Accordance with Sharia law of inheritance

If the mutation was erroneously made in favour of the brother to the exclusion of sisters, such mutation would not create title in favour of the brother in accordance with Sharia law of inheritance and the suit filed by sister was not time barred in circumstances.

2014 SCMR 801

INHERITANCE

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Though provisions of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908, have not been made applicable to proceedings under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, however, the same has not excluded applicability of S. 12 of Limitation Act, 1908. In absence of such exclusion, provisions of S.12 of Limitation Act, 1908, are applicable to proceedings under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.

2014 CLD 1020

Power of Cooperatives Judge

Power of Cooperatives Judge could only be invoked by an "aggrieved person" against an act or decision of the Cooperatives Board. Cooperatives Board itself had not been reckoned as an "aggrieved person" so as to avail any right or conferred with a locus standi to approach the Cooperatives Judge under S.11 of Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993.

Interpretation of Statutes 
Rule of Ejusdem Generis 
When general word or phrase (in a statute) followed a list of specifics, the general word or phrase shall be interpreted to include only the words/items of the same class as those specified.

PLD 2014 S.C. 471
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search