Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
ZAHOOR AHMED VS MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
Summary: Summary pending.
Ejaz Baig VS The State
Summary: Summary Pending
Sana-ur-Rehman Vs State
Summary: Petition for post-arrest bail & bail cancellation application.
Gul Alam Zar Khan vs Haider Ali
Summary: Art.148 Limitation Act:60 years period for redemption of mortgaged land
Mst Shahida Parveen (Appellant) V/S Saiful Malook (Respondent)
Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---Specific Performance of Contract (Section 79 of Qanaun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984) ----S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Suit for specific performance to sell immovable property---Agreement to sell, proof of---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that she purchased suit property form defendant on the basis of agreement to sell---Validity---Burden was on plaintiff to prove the existence of agreement to sell and handing over of possession of suit property through sale agreement---Record showed that neither plaintiff had produced receipt of payment nor she had produced marginal witnesses or any other witness to prove execution of sale agreement with defendant---Sole testimony of plaintiff was not sufficient, thus, plaintiff had failed to discharge her burden in terms of S.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S. 115---Revision---Concurrent findings of lower courts---Concurrent findings of lower courts could not be set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under S.115 of C.P.C. unless same were found perverse or contrary to record.
Ghulam Muhammad (Appellant) V/S Anand Kohistan Cotton and an Other (Respondent)
Summary: (a) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)--- ----S. 17---Suit filed by registered firm---Not hit by S. 17, Registration Act, 1908---Appeals were dismissed. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 100---Second appeal---Scope---Scope of second appeal was limited to three grounds mentioned in S. 100, C.P.C.---In the present case, none of the ingredients of S. 100, C.P.C. had been found in memo. of appeal or in grounds of appeal---Appellant had failed to point out anything contrary to law or to some usage having force of law in judgments and decrees of lower courts---Appellant had not pointed out any misreading or non-reading of evidence nor he had been able to point out any legal lacuna in findings of lower court---Second appeals were dismissed, in circumstances.
Mst Shahida Parveen (Applicant) V/S Saiful Malook (Respondent)
Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- Specific Performance of Contract (Section 79 of Qanaun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984)----S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Suit for specific performance to sell immovable property---Agreement to sell, proof of---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that she purchased suit property form defendant on the basis of agreement to sell---Validity---Burden was on plaintiff to prove the existence of agreement to sell and handing over of possession of suit property through sale agreement---Record showed that neither plaintiff had produced receipt of payment nor she had produced marginal witnesses or any other witness to prove execution of sale agreement with defendant---Sole testimony of plaintiff was not sufficient, thus, plaintiff had failed to discharge her burden in terms of S.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S. 115---Revision---Concurrent findings of lower courts---Concurrent findings of lower courts could not be set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under S.115 of C.P.C. unless same were found perverse or contrary to record.
Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus CH. ABID RAZA & 17 others
Summary: PLJ 2015 TrC (Election) 30 [Election Tribunal Lahore] Present Kazim Ali Malik Member Election Tribunal Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ILYAS - - Petitioner versus CH ABID RAZA 17 others - - Respondents Election Petition No 275 of 2013 heard on 1932014 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 62 (d) (e) (f) (g) - - Candidature of returned candidate - - Qualification of returned candidate was challenged on account of name was included in Fourth Schedule of ATA - - Grounds of attack against qualification of returned candidate to contest General Elections - 2013 have fallen to ground - - Petitioner cannot be and should not be allowed to re - agitate issue of acquittal of returned candidate and its legal effect already determined by High Court - - Returned candidate invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court against decision by Government of Punjab and writ petition was disposed of as having borne fruits as Home Department deleted name of returned candidate from fourth schedule - - No difficulty in concluding without any fear of contradiction that petitioner was qualified to contest General Elections - 2013 - - Petition was dismissed [P 37] A Barrister Mian Bilal Ahmed for Petitioner Mr Salman Ahmad for Respondent No 1returned candidate Remaining Respondents ex - parte as beforeJudgement Result:Petition dismissed
MUHAMMAD ALTAF vs ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE and others
Summary: Summary pending
MUHAMMAD ALTAF vs ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE and others
Summary: Summary pending