Ideal Legal Solutions

30/07/2025

09/05/2025

الحمدللہ۔۔۔

24/07/2024

الحمدللہ!

ٹیم آئیڈیل لیگل سلوشنز کی شاندار کامیابی۔۔۔
وفاقی محتسب برائے انسداد ہراسیت نے آئیڈیل لیگل سلوشنز کی قانونی ٹیم کے جاندار دلائل کی روشنی میں اپیل کنندہ کی برطرفی کا حکم منسوخ کر دیا۔

09/07/2024

Another target achieved. Bail allowed. Offence u/s 324 ppc

09/07/2024

الحمدللہ!
آئیڈیل لیگل سلوشنز کی قانونی ٹیم کے دلائل کی روشنی میں فیڈرل سروس ٹربیونل نے نوکری سے برخاست شدہ ملازم کی سروس اپیل منظور کرتے ہوئے برخاستگی کی تاریخ سے ملازمت پر بحال کر دیا۔

20/04/2024

PLD 2022 Lahore 840

MARRIAM BIBI and others
Versus
AZHAR IQBAL and others

(c) Family Courts Act (###V of 1964)---
----Ss. 5 & 17-A(1)(4)---Maintenance, fixation of---Preconditions---Question was with regard to fixation of maintenance allowance for minor child by Family Court and maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Family Court to keep in consideration following aspects and legal requisites before passing interim and final maintenance allowance under S.17-A(1)(4) of Family Courts Act, 1964: viz: (i) basis of averments in plaint; (ii) other supporting documents on record; (iii) summoning all relevant documentary evidence; (iv) determining the estate; and (v) determining resources of the defendant---Judicial resources needed to be promptly and consistently available to litigants for core functions of fact finding, particularly when law itself was available for rescue---In all cases where occupation, job or source of income of the person was definite and identified and of such a nature remuneration, income or earnings wherefrom could be traced in a documented form then by all extent and measures, it was duty of Family Court to ascertain 'estate' and 'resources' of defendant---In all such cases where the same stood undetermined or pleadings were evasive or just formal without substantive or believable proof in such regard and by way of summoning relevant documentary evidence instead to settling with sole reliance upon pleadings / averments of parties without due application of mind and exercise of its powers specifically conferred by way of legislation---Such course was neither unusual nor was it whimsical for Family Courts to delve into relevant documentary evidence dealing with financial status of defendant to determine maintenance---High Court set aside judgments and decrees of both the Courts below to the extent of maintenance allowance of minor only and case was remanded to Family Court to decide afresh---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

20/04/2024

پیوستہ رہ شجر سے امید بہار رکھ

راستے مشکل ضرور ہوتے ہیں لیکن اگر منزل کا تعین درست ہو تو پروردگار عالم اپنے بندوں کی مدد کرتا ہے۔
ٹیم آئیڈیل لیگل سلوشنز کی شب و روز محنت رنگ لائی۔
قتل کے مقدمہ میں بے گناہ اور معصوم شخص کو بے بنیاد الزامات کے تحت کرمنل ٹرائیل کا سامنا تھا جو کہ ٹیم آئیڈیل لیگل سلوشنز کی کاوشوں سے عدالت جناب شعیب انور قریشی معزز ایڈیشنل سیشنز جج لاہور نے بے بنیاد الزامات سے با عزت بری کر دیا۔
الحمدللہ ثمہ الحمدللہ

05/04/2024

2006 YLR 870 LAHORE

Mst. AMINA (deceased) through Legal Heirs VS Mst. JAMEELA BEGUM

-0.###IX, Rr.1 & 2-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 52-- Suit for declaration with injunction-Lis pendence, doctrine of---Applicability-Injunction-Injunction was refused by Trial Court-Grant of injunction-Essential ingredients-All three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience must co-exist entitling the plaintiff to seek the relief- Alleged sale of property was effected in 1991 and was being challenged in the year 2003 and that too after the death of plaintiffs' mother who was the first legal heir of the property and who also did not challenge the alleged sale in her life time-Plea that plaintiffs were kept in dark, was a question of fact, but of vital importance, which needed proof; it could not be prima facie assumed that for such a long period of time, the plaintiffs remained unaware of the alleged transaction-No prima facie case existed in favour of plaintiffs-Grant of injunction was rightly refused---High Court, however, directed that in case of alienation of suit property defendant would have to inform the purchaser in writing about the pendency of the suit so that riglus of plaintiffs were protected under rule of lis pendence.

12/03/2024

2002 YLR 3192
LAHORE-HIGH- COURT-LAHORE

Syed SAGHIR HUSSAIN VS MEHDI HASSAN

--S.12-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.II, R.2- Suit for specific performance of agreement--- Dismissal of the suit and subsequently suit for recovery of earnest money-Starting point of limitation-Dismissal of suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was no bar to subsequent suit for recovery of earnest money paid in pursuance of agreement-Limitation for the second suit would start running only from the date of final decision of earlier suit and bar of O.II, R. 2, C. P. C. would not be applicable- Cause of action for suit for recovery of price paid under agreement, would arise only when its specific, performance had been refused because otherwise claim for specific performance and return of price would be inconsistent and plaintiff would not be obliged to sue for said relief, till such time that specific performance was disallowed.

11/03/2024

2012 CLC 1679
LAHORE-HIGH- COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS Malik ALLAH YAR KHAN

Provision of proviso (a) to section 35 of Stamp Act, 1899, is curative and covers situation according to which if any instrument is not stamped or insufficiently stamped would be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty-Payment of stamp duty is a matter between a citizen and the State and an adversary cannot be permitted to capitalize on a technicality which otherwise is not fatal to suit.

11/03/2024

PLD 2024 SUPREME-COURT 45

Mehr NOOR MUHAMMAD VS NAZIR AHMED

S. 4- Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 36-Promissory note--Admissibility in evidence-Section 36 of the Stamp
Act, 1899 provides that when a document has once been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called into question at any stage of the suit or in proceedings, on the ground that the instrument has
not been duly stamped-Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided there and then when the document is tendered in evidence---Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, admits the document in evidence and allows the parties to use it in examination and cross-examination, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed-It is, therefore, essential that parties to litigation, where such a controversy is raised, must be cautious, and the party challenging the admissibility of the document must be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court-Court is also required to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case-So, once a promissory note has been marked as an exhibit and the trial has proceeded along the footing that the promissory note is made an exhibit, and has been used by the parties in the examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, then section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, will come into operation-In the present case as the promissory note had admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it was not open to the Trial Court to exclude it from consideration while writing the final judgment, nor to the appellate Court- -Admission of the document in terms of section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, cannot be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction.

11/03/2024

2004 CLD 399
Lahore High Court

SAHIBZADA ANWAR HAMID VS Messrs TOPWORTH INVESTMENTS (MACAU) LTD

(j) Stamp Act (II of 1899)---

--S. 35 - Power of attorney-Non-bearing of stamp-- Validity-Merely because the power of attorney did not bear the stamp, the same was not invalid and the defect was curable under S.35 of Stamp Act, 1899.