Were to be finalized by the “Notified Officers”.

“Bare perusal of above provisions would disclose that only such matters which were either actively pending consideration before Authorities for final disposal or had been remanded by the High Court or Supreme Court were to be finalized by the “Notified Officers”.

1999 SCMR 1719

Used in judgment of  Civil Revision
637-12

Read More

Sound decision of the question of limitation depended

“…Sound decision of the question of limitation depended on a well considered decision regarding dissolution of partnership and since the parties were not allowed an opportunity to lead evidence with regard to the question of dissolution by framing a specific issue in this behalf, the case was not properly tried. It is pertinent to mentioned here that therefore, deserved to be remanded for fresh decision…”

PLD 1995 SC 629

Used in Judgment of: Civil Original Suit (C.O.S)
1343554.643-12

Read More

Sacrifice of a right but the abandonment of claim.

“a compromise is an agreement to put an end to disputes and to terminate or avoid litigation, and in such cases, the consideration which each party receives is the settlement of the dispute, the real consideration is not, the sacrifice of a right but the abandonment of claim.”

AIR 1916 Calcutta 843

Source:
2019 LHC 1994

Read More

Law regarding the disposition of properties

 “This is a settled law regarding the disposition of properties of Parda Nasheen Ladies and also the illiterate and ignorant women that the genuineness of the transaction of disposition must be established by the persons who claims its genuineness or who is to be benefitted by such transaction through reliable, cogent and convincing evidence.”

2005 SCMR 1859

Lahore High court

2019 LHC 1562

Civil Revision
130272/18

Read More

Hard and fast rule is, that when any transaction is made

“14. The inflexible, hard and fast rule is, that when any transaction is made by any one where “Parda Nasheen” lady’s vital interest is involved then, the following conditions are to be invariably and essentially fulfilled: -

(i) to establish through evidence that the transaction was free from any influence, misrepresentation or fraud; 

(ii) that, the amount of consideration equal to the value of the property was indeed paid to the ladies; 

(iii) in the case of “Parda Nasheen” rustic village ladies at the time of transaction such ladies were fully made to understand the nature of the transaction and the consequences, emanating therefrom and; 

(iv) That at the time of transaction, the ladies were having access to independent advice of their nearer or dearer, who have no hostile interest to them.”

2016 SCMR 862

Used In:

2019 LHC 1562

Read More

Ingredients of gift

To prove three ingredients of gift:
(i) offer by donor,
(ii) acceptance of gift by the donee and
(iii) delivery of possession; and all these ingredients need to be proved and established through independent evidence.

PLD 2018 SC 698

Used In judgment of:

2019 LHC 1562

Read More

Rule 10 CPC are empowered to add or strike

The criminal courts have been conferred on jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure quite in line with command contained in Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The criminal courts have been constituted under a law known as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The civil courts on the other hand have been constituted under the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (W.P. Ordinance II of 1962) and had been conferred jurisdiction in line with the above quoted Constitutional provisions also. The Code of Civil Procedure regulates the proceedings before the civil courts for the decision of the lis. The civil courts and not the criminal courts, Rule 10 CPC are empowered to add or strike any person as a party in the is before them. The application of the petitioner in absence of any provision of law enabling it to pass such order illegally has been accepted by the trial court.

Tag Line of 

2019 LHC 2702

Wp. Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
11067-16

Read More

Legislature while enacting a special law for awarding punishment

Legislation-

Special law enacted to curb a crime----Scope and applicability---Category of persons who could be prosecuted---Legislature while enacting a special law for awarding punishment for a crime, in its wisdom, may or may not describe any particular category of persons who could be prosecuted----Where a special law after making a particular act an offence also described the category of persons who could be prosecuted then unless such person fell within the described category, he could not be prosecuted---Where the special aw only described the offence or a set of offences and sought to punish any person and every person who was found to have committed the described offence then terms like „anyone‟, „any person‟ „whoever‟ and „whosoever‟ were used for the offenders in order to include all offenders without any distinction---In such a case, the offender may belong to any class of offenders, he as an accused could be prosecuted under such law.

PLD 2016 SC 769

Writ Petition No.11067/2016 & Crl. Misc. No.14-Q/2016

Read More

Question relating to condonation of delay

Section 14 & 15

-    Question relating to condonation of delay lies within discretion cannot be interfered unless it agitated and these discretion cannot be interfered unless it has been exercised illegally or arbitrarily.

1995 SCMR 1655
1994 SCMR 690
1080 SCMR 722

Read More

Scope and application of S.3(1)(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

“---S. 3 (1) & (2)---Scope and application of S.3(1)(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005----Essentials for Complainant to allege and show before the court and the defence line of the accused enumerated. The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a special enactment which has been promulgated to discourage the land grabbers and to protect the right of owner and the lawful occupant of the property as against the unauthorized and illegal occupants.; The careful examination of the relevant provisions n the Act would reveal that all cases of illegal occupants without any distinction, would be covered by the Act, except the cases which were already pending before any other forum. The purpose of this special law was to protect the right of possession of lawful owner or occupier and not to perpetuate the possession of illegal occupants. The provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 are in the form of preventive provisions. The section begins with the words: “no one shall….”. This is a prohibitory mandate. There is no restriction as to the class of persons. All persons have been prohibited to commit the offence detailed in this provision, be he male or female. In order to constitute an offence under section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, the Complainant is to allege and show before the Court:- 

(i) That the Complainant is the actual owner (or occupier i.e. in lawful possession) of the immovable property in question. 

(ii) That the accused has entered into (or upon) the said property. 

(iii) That the entry of the accused into (or upon) the said property is without an y lawful authority. 

(iv) That the accused has done so with the intention to dispossess (to grab or to control or to occupy) the Complainant. 

The provision of section 3(2) is salutary and mandatory. It is with the purpose to alleviate the suffering and is also effective deterrent against crime. The Legislature has taken full care to close all doors of any injustice to the parties.  

2009 SCMR 1066

Writ Petition No.11067/2016 & Crl. Misc. No.14-Q/2016

Read More

Property with the intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy any property

“Subsection (1) of section 3 forbids any person from entering into or upon any property with the intention to dispossess, grab, control, or occupy any property from its owner or occupier, whereas subsection (2) of section 3 provides that any person who contravenes the provision of subsection (1) of section 3 shall be liable for a punishment of imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine and also provide compensation to the victim in accordance with section 544-A of the Code. The punishment provided in subsection (2) of section 3 is beside and without prejudice to any punishment provided under any other law.”

PLD 2006 Karachi 221

2019 LHC 2702 Writ Petition No.11067/2016 & Crl. Misc. No.14-Q/2016

Read More

Modes of proving the document

(2015 SCMR 1044) has elaborately defined Article 79 and finally concluded that its requirement was mandatory and without its strict compliance, such a document cannot be used as evidence. Although, report of such an Expert is not conclusive proof, but in absence of one of the marginal witnesses, when requirement of Article 80 of the Order, 1984 was also not complied with, this mode was to be followed. See ?

(PLD 1995 Supreme Court 381),wherein it was held that the report of Expert is one of the modes of proving the document and if the said report is properly exhibited, the same can be used as corroborative piece of evidence. By not resorting to this exercise at any stage, the plaintiff incurred an adverse presumption against him.

Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.2383/2009

Read More

Buy share of other co-owners

That the petitioners were always willing to buy share of other co-owners but their request was not acceded to; that learned courts below have committed material illegalities while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, therefore, these cannot sustain. He accordingly prays that this civil revision be allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside and the suit of respondent No.1- plaintiff be dismissed.


2008 CLC 248

Read More

The property is liable to be auctioned.

 “Bare perusal of section 2 of Act, 1893 (ibid) reflects that request for sale can be made, where a decree for partition might have been made. Legislature has consciously used the phrase “where a decree for partition might have been made”. Sale, according to provisions of Section 2(ibid), pertains to the cases, where decree might have been made. The above provision of law is not applicable to the case where the decree has been passed. Partition decree consists of two decrees so to say the preliminary decree and final decree. Once the preliminary decree is passed, the provisions of section 2 of the Partition Act, will not apply and the Court has to pass final decree. The court, in such circumstances, will resort to the provisions of Section 3 and in case of failure of any shareholder to apply for leave to buy the share, the property is liable to be auctioned.”

2008 CLC 248 Lahore

Read More

Buy up the shares of other co-sharers

“The Court can always allow some of the co-sharers having a major share to buy up the shares of other co-sharers in order to protect the family dwelling house from being sold in auction.”

(AIR 1989 Calcutta 159)


Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.525/2009

Read More