Summary: Service matter, challenging appointments

Summary: Bail Before Arrest in FIR No. 599, dated 17 -11 -2021 U/s 420/468/471/484/148/149/149/447/506(ii). P.S Lohi Bher, Islamabad.

Summary: Quashment of FIR No. 101/2022, dated 18 -01 -22 U/s 420 PPC P.S Industrial Area, Islamabad.

Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR No. 263/2021, dated 25 -03 -2021 U/s 395/412/109 PPC P.S I -9, Industrial Area, Islamabad.

Summary: Post Arrest Bail in Case FIR No. 578/21 Dated 07.11.2021 U/s 302/34 PPC, PS Lohi Bher, Islamabad

Summary: Family: Petitioner is Judgement debtor of maintenance for minor daughter and wife. His alleges that he is not Biological father of the minor daughter. He is application for DNA has been dismissed.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Ss. 35 & 35-B— Award of actual cost of litigation—Scope and mandatory nature—Foreign judgment—Execution proceedings—Litigation costs—Appeal against the award of costs by the executing court—Appellant challenged the order of the executing court granting Rs.100,000/- as costs under S.35, contending that the actual litigation costs incurred, including attorney fees and incidental expenses, were disregarded—Held, under S.35(1)(i) & (ii), the grant of actual costs to the successful party is a mandatory requirement—Court is required to award actual costs of litigation, including but not limited to legal fees, court fees, and ancillary expenses, as substantiated by evidence—Discretion is limited to determining what constitutes “actual costs” within reasonable limits—Failure of the executing court to assess and reason the awarded amount rendered its decision unsustainable—Impugned order to the extent of litigation costs was set aside, and the case was remanded to the executing court for reassessment in light of S.35(1)(ii) of CPC and the Cost of Litigation Act, 2017—Parties directed to submit detailed statements of litigation costs with documentary proof. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Ss. 35(1)(iii) & 35-B— Vexatious litigation—Abuse of court process—Special costs—Cross-objections—Foreign judgment—Respondent repeatedly raised objections to the execution of a foreign judgment that had attained finality—Identical arguments previously dismissed in Civil Revision No. 494/2019 were again raised through cross-objections—Held, cross-objections were not maintainable under O.XLI, R.22, CPC, as the impugned order was not a decree—Further, the repeated filing of objections constituted an abuse of the judicial process—Court imposed special costs of Rs.200,000/- under S.35-B, CPC, for vexatious litigation, causing unwarranted delays, and taxing court resources. (c) Cost of Litigation Act, 2017— ----Mandatory nature of litigation costs—Principles of indemnification—Scope—The legislative intent behind the Act was to establish a “loser-pays” system in Islamabad, ensuring that the winning party is indemnified against actual litigation costs—The law discourages frivolous litigation, promotes settlements, and ensures judicial efficiency—Held, courts must grant actual costs as a statutory right under S.35(1)(ii), CPC—Failure to determine actual litigation costs would defeat the purpose of the law—Court outlined principles for assessing reasonableness and proportionality of legal costs, ensuring fairness and preventing unjust financial barriers to accessing justice. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside to the extent of litigation costs. Case remanded to the executing court for reassessment of actual costs based on documentary evidence. Special costs of Rs.200,000/- imposed on the respondent for vexatious litigation.

Summary: Cancellation of Bail in FIR No. 578/2021, dated 07-11-2021 U/s 302/148/149 PPC. P.S Lohi Bhair, Islamabad.

Summary: It is settled taw that pleadings must contain only factum probanda and not factum probantia. The material fact on which the party relies for his claim are called factum probanda and they must be stated in the pleadings. And the facts or facts by means of which factum probanda (material facts) are proved and which are in the nature of factum probantia (particular or evidence) need not be set out in the pleadings. They are not facts in issue, but only relevant facts required to be proved at the trial in order to establish the fact in issue