Summary: O.XLI,R-27 CPC: Declaratory suit--Production of additional evidence

Summary: S.42 SR Act: Declaratory suit--Correction in date of birth--jurisdiction of civil Court.

Summary: S. 13 KPK Pre-emption Act, 1987, 115 CPC, 1908.Talb-e-Ishhad, instead of postman his brother was produced by pre-emptor to prove the delivery of registered post. Talb-e-Ishhad not legally proved.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8, 12, 42 & 52----Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 31---Suit for specific performance, declaration, return of articles, mesne profit and injunction---Power of attorney, revocation of---Principles---Judgment in appeal---Plaintiff filed suit claiming that he had obtained possession of suit property after paying substantial part of consideration, but defendant later unlawfully cancelled general power of attorney and illegally took back possession of suit property from tenant of plaintiff and refused to perform his part of sale contract---Both trial court and appellate court decreed the suit on admission of defendant as to execution of sale agreement---Validity---Defendant failed to point out any instance of misreading or non-reading of evidence to show that courts below had come to wrong conclusion---Defendant had admitted execution of contract of sale with plaintiff and handing over possession of suit property on realization of substantial amount and transfer of loan in favour of plaintiff---As suit property was rented out by plaintiff and plaintiff had been paying loan of House Building Finance Corporation, thus there was no justification for defendant to unilaterally cancel power of attorney without notice to plaintiff and fraudulently obtain possession by inducing tenant of respondent---Defendant had not established his defence plea through cogent evidence---Plaintiff, on the other hand, had established by cogent evidence execution of sale agreement and payment of consideration---Power of attorney was not without consideration---Defendant had not made any public notice in newspapers while revoking power of attorney---Defendant failed to prove rescission of sale agreement---Defendant's witnesses were chance witnesses---Tenant of suit property, as witness of defendant, had admitted that he was put in possession of premises by plaintiff---Persons who appeared as witness before Registrar for registration of revocation of power of attorney had not come in witness box---Contents of cancellation deed did not disclose reasons for cancelling power of attorney---Cancellation deed was contrary to terms of power of attorney, which provided that cancellation of same was to be proceeded with no objection certificate from House Building Finance Corporation---Cancellation of power of attorney after receiving entire consideration for executing same was not lawful---Appellate court, while marshalling evidence, had examined all issues framed by trial court and affirmed findings of trial court, which was sufficient compliance of provisions of O. XLI, R. 31 C.P.C.---High Court observed that appellate court was not always required to discuss each issue, unless same was reversed by first appellate court---Defendant had lingered on the matter for last twenty years---Revision petition was dismissed with cost in circumstances.

Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 1627 of 2010 was filed in the Lahore High Court against the acquittal of three individuals charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The appeal was submitted beyond the prescribed time limit, and an application for condonation of the delay was made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing reasons beyond the petitioner's control for the delay.The Court, after due consideration, rejected the appeal and the plea for condonation of delay. It was established that the prescribed time limit for filing the appeal against acquittal is strict and must be adhered to. Quoting precedents and legal dictums, the Court emphasized that the protection provided by the lapse of time in criminal matters against individuals acquitted is crucial. The reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal were deemed insufficient and unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the application seeking condonation of the delay.In conclusion, the Court held that condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable for filing appeals against acquittals. Therefore, the appeal and the petition seeking condonation were both dismissed due to the absence of legal justification.

Summary: Balochistan People's Local Government Ordinance (1 of 1972)-------S. 74---Allotment of State land---Competence---Chairman, Town Committee not competentto allot state land---Plaintiff claimed that the suit land, which belonged to Public HealthDepartment, had been allotted to him by Chairman Town Committee and he had been inpossession of the same and that Chairman, Town Committee during his (plaintiff's) absence, hadinterfered in his possession---Both trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit---Question beforeHigh Court was whether the Town Committee had the authority to allot land measuring morethan six hundred square feet---Under cl.4 of Notification dated 28th May, 1975 issued byBalochistan Government, application for allotment of land of Town Committee was to bereferred to District Coordination Committee by Deputy Commissioner for obtaining NOC, whichprerequisite was lacking in the present case---After issuance of the NOC, the case was to bereferred to Secretary Local Government---Under cl.7 of said Notification, the only competentauthority for making allotment was the Secretary Local Government---Other Notifications dated31st July, 1975 and 7th August, 1975, also did not confer any power of allotment to the Chairman Town Committee---Documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff had althoughestablished allotment of the suit land but firstly, the procedure provided under Notification dated28th May, 1975 had not been adhered to for the allotment, secondly, the Chairman TownCommittee was not competent at all to issue any allotment order---Allotment in question issuedby the Chairman Town Committee at any point of time was absolutely without jurisdiction, abinitio void and without lawful authority---Tehsil Nazim concerned had also addressed a letter tothe court and categorically stated that no allotment whatsoever had been issued in favour of theplaintiff---High Court observed that Officials were under their prime responsibility to safeguardeach and every inch of the State land allotted to Public Health Department---Revision petitionwas dismissed with cost in circumstances.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law-------Gift---Ingredients---Donor, an illiterate lady---Attorney of donor gifted share of sister infavour of brother during pendency of suit for declaration, partition, possession, injunction etc.and preliminary decree was passed---Contention of plaintiff was that her counsel had notproperly assisted her---Validity---Impugned gift deed executed by the attorney did not haveprerequisites and essentials of a gift---Neither there was offer of gift by the donor nor acceptanceof the same by the donee and possession had also not been delivered to the donee---Gift made bythe attorney was also beyond the powers conferred upon the attorney---Specific clause ofconferment of power making gift by the attorney must be mentioned in the power of attorney---No such power was ever conferred upon the attorney in the present case---Impugnedgift/compromise deed was frivolous, fictitious, fabricated, unauthorized and an illegal document---Preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court had no legal weight in circumstances---Plaintiffwas entitled for her legal share in the suit property---Impugned preliminary order/decree passedby the Trial Court was set aside and suit was decreed---Collector (Revenue) was directed todistribute the property of deceased to all the share holders including the plaintiff in accordance with shari shares---Revision was allowed in circumstances.2005 SCMR 1368; 2006 CLC 1893; PLD 1990 SC 1; PLD 2010 SC 582; PLD 2005 SC705; and PLD 1996 SCR 193 ref.Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others 1994 SCMR 818; Mst. Bandi v.Province of Punjab and others 2005'SCMR 1368 and Mst. Parsan Bibi and another v. Mst. RaziaBibi and 10 others 2006 CLC 1893 rel.(b) Islamic Law-------Inheritance---Property would devolve upon the legal heirs without any intervention of courtand clergy the moment propositus died.Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 and Mst. Subanv. Allah Ditta and others 2007 SCMR 635 rel.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Preliminary consent decree---Revision without filing of appeal---Competence---Consent decree was not appealable and non-filing of appeal against the said preliminary decreewas no bar for filing revision petition.1989 SCMR 1826; PLD 1980 SC 45; AIR 1974 SC 1069 and Registrar, High Court ofBalochistan v. Abdul Majeed and 3 others PLD 2013 Bal. 26 rel.(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Revisional powers were supervisoryin nature and matter would remain between the High Court and court subordinate to it---Wherean order/judgment suffered from inherent jurisdictional defect or was void and no appeal hadbeen preferred even then High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction---Non-mentioning ofdate of decree would not affect revisional jurisdiction of High Court.N.W.F.P. Govt. v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan PLD 1993 SC 418 and Ghulam Hussain andothers v. Faiz Muhammad and others PLD 1991 SC 218 rel.(e) Power of attorney-------Alienation of property---Gift---Scope---Power of attorney by its description does not includethe power to make gift, alienate or dispose of the property of the principal, unless specific andexhaustive clause was mentioned in it.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.