*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

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.

: 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

 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.