Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioners filed a suit against their paternal uncle, the respondent, seeking specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for the sale of a piece of land. The petitioners claimed to have made significant payments as part of the agreement. They also applied for a temporary injunction to prevent the respondent from selling the land or interfering with their possession. However, the court, in its judgment, emphasized the need for a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and a balance of convenience for the grant of a temporary injunction. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case as there was no written agreement, and they did not provide proof of the alleged payments. The court highlighted the importance of convincing and reliable evidence in cases based on oral agreements. As a result, the court dismissed the petition for a temporary injunction, stating that there was no merit in the revision petition.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.IX, R.13 & O.V, R.20---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A---Application to set asideex-party decree, rejection of---Modes of service to the defendant---Scope---Right to fair trial---Scope---Held, that though the notices, in the present case, were issued to the petitioner butthe same could not be served upon him and then publication was made in newspaper for hisappearance, thereafter ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and afterrecording ex-parte evidence, the suit was decreed in favour of respondent---Trial Court didnot ascertain the factual position as to whether the notices had properly been served upon thepetitioner and impugned decree and judgment did not justify reasons for the rejection ofapplication under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C.---Article 10-A of the Constitution provided that aperson "shall" be entitled for fair trial and due process both in civil and criminal proceedingsand the rights of person were protected---Even otherwise, under O.V, R.20, C.P.C,substituted service could only be ordered where the Court was satisfied that there werereasons to believe that the defendant was keeping himself away for the purpose of avoidingservice or that for any other reason, the summons could not be served in the ordinary way---Trial Court was supposed to do substantial justice between the parties by restoring the suit inits original position and allowing the parties to prosecute the suit on merits and to leadevidence their pro and contra evidence---Trial Court, in the present case, had failed to effectservice of notice upon the petitioner/defendant through process-server or on the pointation ofthe respondent/plaintiff as the premises of defendant was known to the respondent---Even ifthe service could not be effected the Trial Court was duty bound to have asked for filing of afresh address of the defendant , but instead the Trial Court ordered for proclamation in thenewspaper---Said procedure was bad in law and the process-server had not reported eitherthe avoidance or refusal of service by the defendant, as such the defendant had not beenproperly served---Petitioner was non-suited and was condemned unheard, in circumstances---High Court set aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below---Case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision on merits by providing full and fairopportunity to the parties---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.Malik Muhammad Nazir v. Mian Abdul Raheem and another PLD 1968 Lah. 792 ref.(b) Administration of justice--------Cases were to be decided on merit instead of technicalities.

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss.196 & 168---Customs Baggage Rules, 2016, R. 17---SRO No.574(I)/2005, dated: 06-06-2005---SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009---SRO No.886(I)/2012, dated: 18-07-2012---Seizure of things liable to confiscation---Treatment of goods brought in commercialquantity---Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscated goods---Scope---Bus entered intoPakistan was found loaded with foreign origin goods in commercial quantities while thenumber of pilgrims in the bus were not more than five---Validity---Recovered goods were incommercial quantity, therefore, R.17 of Customs Baggage Rules, 2016, was applicable to thecase---Goods recovered could only be released on payment of the duty and taxes subject toredemption fine at the rate of 30% in terms of SRO No.574(I)/2005, dated: 06-06-2005 andthereafter, at the rate of 20% in terms of SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009---CustomsAppellate Tribunal was not justified to remit the entire amount of fine and penalty as SRONo.886(I)/2012, dated: 18-07-2012 was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of thecase---Reference was accepted, impugned judgment passed by Customs Appellate Tribunalwas set aside.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Procured eyewitness negate the motive advance by complaint.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.24---Transfer of case, application for---Sufficient/reasonable cause---Scope---Occurrence of a criminal incident---Applicants (plaintiffs) sought transfer of the case on theground that the respondents (defendants), becoming inimical towards them, had attackedupon their aunt (one of the respondents) and were also threatening them with direconsequences---Held, that the applicants had made an attempt to tag the criminal incidentwith civil litigation and to base the same for transfer of the civil case to another place just tocreate trouble and inconvenience for the respondents (defendants), which, prima facie,seemed to be creation of mala fide intention---Transfer of case from present place tosomewhere else would create inconvenience for both the parties and their witnesses---Partieswere close to each other and also residing in the same city and there was no history ofprevious enmity between them---Minor incident could not be the base for transfer of case forwhich a criminal case had already been registered and law was put into motion---Applicantshad failed to bring on record any "sufficient cause" for transfer of case ---Record revealedthat the counsel of the applicants was also one of the plaintiffs (applicants), High Courtobserved that, in civil litigation he could make an alternate arrangement of an advocate toproceed with their case---Even otherwise, the criminal incident had taken place between therespondents and taking advantage of the same, the applicants had joined hands with one ofthe respondents to avail sympathies of her in their favour---Parties could not be allowed toseek transfer of the case from one court to other without showing "sufficient cause"---Inabsence of any valid ground, such practice tended to frustrate and cause delay in lawfulproceedings pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction and also causedinconvenience to the other party---Applicants had failed to show any "reasonable cause" orvalid ground for seeking transfer of the case from the Trial Court, which was the requirementof S.24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Application for the transfer of the case wasdismissed, in circumstance.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending