Law - Gardi

Law - Gardi قانونی مدد

13/09/2021
11/09/2021

2021 CLC 1

Contempt of Court---Words 'orders passed in contempt'---Scope---Importer was aggrieved of non-compliance of orders of release of vehícle by Customs Authorities, therefore, he filed contempt application---Single Judge of High Court before invoking contempt proceedings allowed one week time to the authorities for compliance of the order--- Validity--- Only such orders, decisions, judgments which finally terminated contempt proceedings against contemnor were appealable--- Words 'orders passed in contempt' meant the order only awarding punishment and it was that order which could be assailed in Intra Court Appeal--- Interlocutory, interim or procedural orders did not fall within the ambit of order passed in contempt of Court-- Authorities assailed interim procedural order of Single Judge of High Court which they were deliberately avoiding to comply with the direction and lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other--

11/09/2021

2021 CLC 25

Ex-parte decree, setting aside of-Merits of original lis to be considered---Failure to examine serving officer-Effect-- Petitioners assailed the dismissal of their application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings as well as decree, which was dismissed on the sole ground of limitation--Validity--High Court observed that nothing was brought on file to adjudge that the defendants were avoiding service and without recording of the statement of process server to that effect, their substituted service through issuance of proclamation was not warranted-Question of limitation in institution of suit and locus standi of plaintiff being legal propositions were required to be considered by the Trial Court but without taking any pains, ex-parte decreed the suit merely being influenced by the fact that there was no rebuttal to the stance of the plaintiff-- Even otherwise, while dealing with application for setting aside ex- parte decree, merits of the original lis could be considered-- Summary rejection of the application was against the principles of natural justice as well as the concept of fair trial guaranteed by Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Revision petition was allowed, impugned orders were set aside and the Trial Court was directed to re-decide the application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings and decree.

11/09/2021

Bail grant of.....

392, 411 PPC

---
PLJ 2012 Cr.C.1,
PLJ 2012 Cr.C.8,
PLJ 2011 Cr.C.1083,
PLJ 2011 Cr.C.440
PLJ 2011 Cr.C.322 (features)
PLJ 2012 Cr.C.(Lahore) 198
PLJ 2012 Cr.C.(Lahore) 896
PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 357
PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 755
PLJ 2014 Cr.C. (Lahore) 156
PLJ 2014 Cr.C. (Lahore) 607
PLJ 2014 Cr.C. (Lahore) 708
PLJ 2014 Cr.C. (Lahore) 753
PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 265
PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 147
PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 717
PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 153
PLJ 2020 Cr.C. 959
2008 P Cr.LJ 1527-Lahorr
2018 P Cr.LJN 28-Karachi
2018 MLD 1389-Karachi
2020 YLR 891-Islamabad (392, 412)
2020 P Cr.LJN 61 (392, 34)

11/09/2021

Non mentioning jurisdiction and court fee

Ord.7 R-1(i), S. 9 C.P.C & 26(6) Electricity Act, 1910.

Non- mentioning of clause in suit for purpose of jurisdiction and court fee is not mandatory but directory.

2017 MLD 757,
2017 PLJ Pesh. 172

11/09/2021

Appointment of Lumberdar

The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan while considering the mandate and working of the post of a Lumberdar in judgment reported as MBH M. Nazir Ahmad v. MBH Muhammad Aslam and others [2013-SCMR-363] has held as follows:- “..

"As per the settled law, Lambardari is an administrative post of its own kind, which has the colour and tinge of any honorary post and assignment, in any case it is neither in the nature of government service nor a profession or any avocation having any nexus to an office of profit such a drawing salary etc. from the government exchequer (Note: may be some monetary benefits etc. can be said to be attained by the Lambardar directly or indirectly by virtue of his office), it is also not a vested right of a person to be appointed as a Lambardar, rather the revenue authorities, for the purposes of assigning certain responsibilities to a person in the Chak, make a selection as per the criteria set out in rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules and to find the most suitable candidate for the job who could capably discharge the duties inter alia in terms of rule 22 of the rules ibid. As the entire effort of the Revenue Authorities in this behalf should be to find out and locate the most suitable person for the job, because no one, as mentioned above, has a vested right to the appointment, rather a Lambardar is saddled with certain responsibilities in connection with the collection of the land revenue, Abiana and other government dues etc. therefore, for choosing the best available person, on whom trust can be reposed, the condition and requirement of qualifications in strict terms, which may otherwise be adhered to in some other kinds of recruitments in the government service etc. especially in relation to and by a given and a specific date meant for applying for such posts/appointments, should, not be strictly followed in the Lambaridari matter. It may be pertinent to mention here that the relevance and the importance of the date for applying to the post (Lambardari) is primarily meant to ascertain as to who are the persons interested in the job, so that they should come forward and apply for the same by a given date. Thus, the revenue authorities who has Writ Petition No:-19464/2009 13 to make the appointment should have the fair idea of pool (of persons) from whom they should select the most suitable. Therefore, if an applicant who does not cross a threshold of qualification or if there is an impediment in his way for the appointment on the date of application has applied in time, but while the matter is being processed and scrutinized and before the final decision is taken by the first revenue forum, such applicant either crosses the threshold or removes the hurdle in his way, such person notwithstanding the ineligibility on the date of application should be considered by the revenue authorities for the assignment. Because the object, as mentioned earlier, is to appoint a person to perform the duties of a Lambardar, who is the best and suitable man for the job.."

11/09/2021

16-FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS;
False in one particular false in all.
17-OMNE MAJUS CONTINET IN SE MINUS;
The greater contains the lesser.
18-AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM;
No one can be condemned unheard.
19-UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM;
Where there is a right, there is a remedy. There is no wrong without a remedy.
20-DAMNUM SINE INJURIA- damage without injury.
20-A- INJURIA SINE DAMNUM- Injury without damage.

11/09/2021

11-ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA; The act doesn’t make a man guilty unless his mind were so. His intention & act concurrently makes an offence.
12-COGITATIONIS POENAM NEMO MERETUR;
No man deserves punishment for a thought.
12-A)-COGITATIONIS POENAM NEMO PATITUR;
No one can be punished for his thought.
13-ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS;
An act done by me against my will is not my act. No man can be held liable/responsible for an involuntary act such as act under Compulsion, force and fear.
14-QUOD ABINITIO VALET IN TRACTU TEMPORIS NON CONVALESCENT;
That was originally void, doesn’t by lapse of time become valid.
15-EXCUTIO EST FINIS Et FRUCTUS LEGIS;
Ex*****on is the end and fruit of the law.

11/09/2021

6-DURA LEX SED LEX;
The law is hard but it is the law. The law must be obeyed.
7-EL QUEES CAUSA DE LA CAUSA ES CAUSA DEL MAL CAUSA;
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil cause. It is also said or known as ‘Criminal liability’.
8-NON BIS IN IDEM, NEMO DEBET BIS VEXAN;
No one can be vexed twice for same offence. No one can be punished twice for the same offence. It is also card Double jeopardy and Res Judicata.
9-IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT, IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT;
Mistake/Ignorance of law cannot be excused but mistake of fact can be excused. Aristotle said, everyone is presumed to be know the law and its consequences.
10-FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM;
Let justice be done though the heavens may fall.

11/09/2021

is a legal maxim? A principle of law that is universally admitted as being just, & consonant with reason. According to Black s’ law Dictionary, “ as being a correct statement of law or as agreeable to reason”.
is the Significance of legal maxims? It helps to know or understand the law.
courts are bound to follow legal maxims? No court is not bound to follow legal maxims. But all the legal maxims are derived from logical reasoning.
1-IN DUBIO, PRO REO;
The accused shall be assumed innocent until contrary proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
2-TITIUS SEMPER EST ERRARE ECQUITANDO QUAM IN PUNIENDO;
It is always safer to error in acquitting than in punishing. Black stone s’ words; “ it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that 1 /one innocent suffer”. Benjamin Franklin says, “ it is better 💯 guilty persons should escape than one innocent should suffer”.
3-MELIOR EST JUSTITIA VERE PRA E VENIENS, QUAM SEVERE PUNIENS.
Justice truly preventing is better than severely punishing.
4-NULLEM CRIMEN SINE LEGE, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE;
There is no crime without a law, there is no punishment/penalty without a law. This principle is based on principle of legality under Art. 11(2) of UDHR.
5-CULPA POENA PAR ESTO;
Let the punishment equal the crime.

11/09/2021

Dismissal of application for leave to defend does not mean that the suit is to be decreed in all cases and the court retains the powers to reject the plaint of the suit or dismiss the same even thereafter if the plaintiff fails to make out a case for passing decree in the matter.
---

W.P. No. 374 of 2021
Muhammad Saee Khan. Vs. Judge Banking Court, etc.

---

(i). A plaintiff is not required to wait for the decision of an application for leave to defend before filing interlocutory applications which include and are not limited to application for interim injunctions, etc.;
(ii) the defendant in ordinary circumstances is generally barred from filing interlocutory applications before decision of application for leave to defend;
(iii). The bar on defendant on filing interlocutory applications during pendency of application for leave to defend though strict is not absolute and Banking Court has inherent jurisdiction to entertain such applications in exceptional circumstances, which may, inter alia, include but not restricted to (a) an application for restoration of an application for leave to defend dismissed for non-prosecution, (b) an application for rejection of plaint, etc.;

(iv) the application for rejection of plaint is a special kind of application, different from other interlocutory applications for the reason that the Court itself is vested with suo motu powers to reject plaint at any stage in case it does not disclose cause of action, does not conform to the provisions of the Ordinance or is otherwise barred by law;

(v) in cases the plaint shows cause of action, the plaint of suit may be rejected on the basis of the other material available on record or the defence taken by the defendant which ordinary is done after the application for leave to defend is decided;

(vi) grounds taken in application for rejection of plaint may also be treated as a ground for grant of application for leave to defend, which has to be considered on its own merits and if the circumstances of the case so require, leave may be granted on the said grounds; and

(vii) dismissal of application for leave to defend does not mean that the suit is to be decreed in all cases and the court retains the powers to reject the plaint of the suit or dismiss the same even thereafter if the plaintiff fails to make out a case for passing decree in the matter.

Address

Lahore
Punjab

Telephone

+923354175581

Website

Alerts

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

Share

Category