Moazzam Abbas Law Associates

Moazzam Abbas Law Associates Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Moazzam Abbas Law Associates, Legal Service, Khar.

28/01/2026

2026 SCMR 152
Ambreen Akram Asad Ullah Khan.
C.P. No. 1107-L of 2015.
Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take benefit of his OWN wrong)---"Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Ignorance of law is not excuse)---Scope and applicability---The legal maxim "nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" delineates that no man can take advantage of his own wrong---If a person sets up a strategy to thwart the legal rights of others, he cannot be allowed to take benefit of his wrong---At the same time, another legal maxihm "ignorantia juris non excusat" cannot be ignored, which describes that ignorance of the law is no excuse and nobody can get away from being held accountable for being in violation of the law by merely pleading that he was unaware of the consequences.

2025 SCMR 564Under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, the service could be affected on thedefendant(s) persona...
12/01/2026

2025 SCMR 564

Under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, the service could be affected on the
defendant(s) personally, by registered post,
through authorized agent or a male member of
the family.

It is settled principle of law as well as demand
and mandate of law that one should not be
condemned unheard and every litigant(s)
should be provided with fair opportunity to
plead and defend his/her case by adhering to
the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and
technicalities should and ought to be avoided.

12/01/2026

Procedural technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over dispensation of substantial justice.
Mst. Bakht Rana V/S Muhammad Zubair Khan
2012 CLC 360 (Peshawar)

12/01/2026

Technicalities – Supreme Court disallowed the practice of non-suiting a party on technicalities.
1995 SCMR 1748.

12/01/2026

Pakistan Agricultural Storage & Ors Corporation Ltd V. Mian Abdul Latif & Ors PLD 2008 SC 371 wherein it is held as:- “6… and if the Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and documents available comes to the precise conclusion that even if all the allegations made in the plaint are proved; the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief claimed, then the Court would be justified to reject the plaint in exercise f powers available under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.”

12/01/2026

2016 SCMR 910
Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Bibi Gul Jan
As regards Mr. Awan’s contention that the question of limitation being a mixed question of law and facts ought to have been decided after recording evidence, we may observe that it is only in cases where determination as to when the cause of action for the suit arose, is dependent upon a certain factor, situation, happening or occurrence, existence, extent and the nature whereof could only be ascertained after recorded evidence, that the question of imitation needs to be determined after such evidence. However, where on the plain reading of the plaint, as in the present case, it can be clearly seen that the suit is patently barred by limitation, no evidence is required. In fact to plead that a plaint cannot be rejected, for the suit being barred by limitation / law, without recording evidence is to plead against the mandate of law as contained in Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which essentially requires the Court to reject the plaint which appears from its contents to be barred by limitation.”

12/01/2026

PLD 1985 SC 153) wherein it is held as:- “4. … If from the statement in the plaint the suit appears to be barred by limitation, the plaint shall have to be rejected also under Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C. The law therefore, does not leave the matter or limitation to the pleadings of the parties. It imposes a duty in this regard upon the Court itself…

12/01/2026

PLD 2003 Supreme Court 724
(k) Limitation -- Administration of Justice -- Decision of the cases on merits always to be encouraged instead of non-suiting the litigants for technical reasons including on limitation (p.769).

07/10/2025

2024 PLD 1268 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : AKHTAR NASIR AHMED
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector Gujrat
inheritance cases, filing of---Limitation---principles ---It is not in all cases of inheritance that question of limitation become irrelevant---There can be exceptional circumstances where in a suit based on inheritance issue of limitation may become relevant---In some cases the Supreme Court has invoked the principle of time limitation and acquiescence of the plaintiff in suits involving inheritance .

07/10/2025

2025 P Cr. L J 1412

[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Sadiq Mahmud Khurram and Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, JJ

SAJID ALI---Appellant

Versus

The STATE and another---Respondents
e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 295-C & 298-A---Making derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Site plan doubtful --- Accused was charged for speaking words defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), and the sacred names of the wives, members of the family of the Holy Property (peace be upon him) and the righteous Caliphs and companions of the Holy Property (peace be upon him) in the presence of witnesses---In the site plan of the place of incident as prepared by Investigating Officer the names of the prosecution witnesses had not been mentioned---Furthermore, except the mentioning of the house of the complainant of the case, the residences of the other prosecution witnesses had not been marked or mentioned in the site plan of the place of incident---Moreover, according to the site plan of the place of incident as prepared by Investigating Officer, only the complainant of the case and one witness were present at the time of the incident and there was no mention of the presence of the other prosecution witnesses in the said site plan---All those facts fatally hurt the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

(f) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available then its benefit is to be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right.

Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772; Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 and The State through P.G. Sindh and others v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh and others 2021 SCMR 873 rel.

07/10/2025

2025 C L C 1435

[Islamabad]

Before Muhammad Asif, J

MUHAMMAD QADIR and another ---Petitioners

Versus

NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY (NADRA) and 2 others ---Respondents

W. Ps. Nos. 3627 and 3906 of 2023, decided on 10th April, 2025.

National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000) ---

----Ss. 14 & 18---NADRA's jurisdiction to impound, cancel or confiscate Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs)---Scope---Digital impounding of CNICs owing to Afghan national status---Failure to verify the national status---Afghan refugees in Pakistan and their claim to Pakistani citizenship based on unverifiable documentation---The petitioners (having Afghan national status) filed constitutional petitions under Art. 199 of the Constitution against the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), challenging the unlawful digital impounding and blocking of their CNICs---Petitioners claimed that NADRA acted without lawful authority and failed to provide any just cause for the blockage---NADRA defended its actions by stating that petitioners failed to verify their nationality status as per the Ministry of Interior's notification dated 19.04.2017, leading to doubt about their citizenship, particularly due to Afghan heritage---Held: NADRA Ordinance, 2000 grants power to NADRA regarding issuance of Pakistan Origin Cards, Overseas Identity Cards and Alien Registration Cards, subject to conditions prescribed in the relevant provisions thereof---Importantly, Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 deals with the power to cancel, impound or confiscate cards issued thereunder---It provides that a card issued under the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 shall be the property of the Federal Government and may, by an order in writing under the seal of NADRA or an officer authorized by it in this behalf, be required to be returned and shall also be liable to be cancelled, impounded or confiscated by like order if there is reason to believe that the card has been obtained by a person not eligible to hold the same by posing himself as eligible; or more than one card has been obtained by the same person on the same eligibility criteria; or the particulars shown on the card have been obliterated or tampered with; or the card is forged---Said provision of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 also provides for a right of appeal to the Federal Government, with the provision of the right of hearing to the aggrieved person---Rights qua entitlement to CNIC is the subject matter of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000---The Federal Government, representing the State itself or through its instrumentalities created under the law is vested with the powers to regulate such rights and in the event of an adverse order, the aggrieved person is conferred the right to challenge the same by way of an appeal, revision or review, as the case may be---The NADRA Ordinance, 2000 provides self-contained mechanisms regarding all issues of CNICs and for this purpose, NADRA Zonal Verification Boards and the DLC (District Level Committee) are created to facilitate and streamline the verification process for various NADRA services, particularly those related to identity verification and CNIC issuance or renewal---These bodies play a crucial role in verifying the accuracy of information, reducing forgery, and ensuring the integrity of the national database---High Court directed that the petitioners to appear before the aforesaid forums which were directed to decide the cases of the petitioners within a month, after affording them opportunity of personal hearing ---In case of any adverse order, the aggrieved person(s) could file an appeal before the Federal Government within the purview of S. 18(3) of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000---Constitutional petitions were disposed of, in circumstances.

07/10/2025

2025 C L C 1537

[Peshawar (Mingora Bench)]

Before Muhammad Naeem Anwar, J

AKBAR SHAH and others ---Petitioners

Versus

AYUB KHAN and others ---Respondents
c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. VI, R. 1---Pleadings---Scope---Mere pleadings unless corroborated by qualitative evidence could not be based for the decision of the lis nor the evidence without pleadings could provide any benefit---Mere pleadings of a party cannot be treated as substitute for proof---No litigant can be allowed to build and prove his case beyond the scope of his pleadings.

Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21; Inayat Ali Shah v. Anwar Hussain 1995 MLD 1714; Pir Wali Khan v. Niaz Badshah 2013 MLD 1106; Mir Laiq Khan v. Sarfraz Jehan 2013 MLD 1449; Mst. Ghazala Yasmeen v. Sarfraz Khan Durrani 2013 CLC 1406; Messrs Choudhary Brothers Ltd., Sialkot v. Jaranwala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaranwala 1968 SCMR 804 and Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 SC 338 rel.

(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Art. 114---Principle of estoppel---Scope---Principle of estoppel is used as a shield and not as a sword.

Address

Khar

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Moazzam Abbas Law Associates posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share

Category