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۔

 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