Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: S.302,324,34 PPC:Not directly charged,no recovery, no identification test,wants further inquiry(Bail allowed)

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 47 & O. VII, R. 2---Money suit---Execution petition---Requirements---Objection petition---Similarity of names---Effect---Contention of petitioner was that he was neither party in the suitnor had got any involvement in the subject matter---Objection petition was dismissed by theExecuting Court---Validity---Petitioner had no concern with the entire transaction right from thepayment of amount uptill establishment of the company---Issue should have been framed withregard to identity of the petitioner as a judgment-debtor---Executing Court without appreciatingthe material available on record had discarded the request of framing the issue to identify thejudgment debtor unjustifiably---Decree could be executed against a person who was not ajudgment-debtor provided he was a surety, a purchaser pendente lite, a heir of deceasedjudgment debtor or in possession of subject property of decree---Sameness of name was notsufficient to bring someone within the clutches of the decree---Besides sameness of name onemust have same interest, character or capacity within the meaning of judgment debtor---None ofthe said requirements had been satisfied in the present case---Petitioner could not be held liablefor satisfaction of decree in any capacity---Petitioner was neither party in the suit nor waspartner, guarantor or surety---Impugned order passed by the Executing Court was set aside---Execution proceedings should remain pending and be finalized in accordance with law---Revision was allowed in circumstances.National Bank of Pakistan v. S.R. Rehmatullah and another PLD 1970 Lah. 330 rel.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 35-A---Compensatory costs for false or vexatious defenses---Requirements---Trial Courtwhile deciding the case imposed costs under S. 35-A, C.P.C. upon the defendant---Validity---Written statements were filed with specific pleas but there was no objection on the part ofplaintiff---Nothing was on record to object that defence taken against the plaintiff was false orvexatious to the knowledge of defendant---Objection had to be taken by a party at an earliestopportunity and such claim should have been held to be false and vexatious by recordingreasons---Trial Court had failed to state reason on basis whereof defence was held to be false orvexatious---Nothing was on record that defendant had knowledge that defence taken was falseand vexatious---Trial Court was not justified to allow compensatory costs in circumstances---Impugned judgment and decree to the extent of compensatory costs were set aside---Revisionwas allowed in circumstances.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.5 KP Explosive Sub.Act,2013.Huge quantity of Explosive Substance. Offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of Cr.P.C.bail refused.