Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: S.302,34,337A(ii),337F(iV) PPC:Night occurrence---no source of light---uncorroborated evidence---benefit of doubt(Acquitted)

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan 1973.Violation of terms and condition of PTCL employees is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Summary: The principle of locus poenitentia.

Summary: Reversion to a post, which never held by incumbent... Fundamental Rule 29 Violation.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. VII, Rr. 11(d) & 3-Non-availability of description of suit property in the plaint-Plaint, rejection of-Scope-Res judicata, principle of-Applicability-Trial Court decreed the suit but Appellate Court rejected the plaint due to non-availability of description of suit property in the plaint-Validity-Court could reject plaint at any stage of the proceedings as contemplated by O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.-Non-compliance of O.VII, R.3, C.P.C. did not attract the penal provision of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. nor it would provide for rejection or dismissal of suit-Plaintiff should be directed to file an amended plaint if it was pointed out at early stage that same did not contain description of suit property-If evidence available on record sufficiently identified the description of suit property then Trial Court could competently pass a decree-Description of suit property, in the present case, was not given in the plaint but evidence to such effect was available-Trial Court had specifically mentioned the Khasra number while decreeing the suit-Appellate Court had committed material irregularity while rejecting the plaint on the ground of non-availability of description of property in the plaint-If findings on the issues recorded by the Appellate Court were allowed to remain in field and plaintiff was permitted to file a fresh suit then suit would be hit by the principle of res judicata-If Appellate Court wanted to reject the plaint at the strength of O.VII, R.3, C.P.C. then it should not have decided the issues as decision on such issues would have the impact on final decision either way-Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and case was remanded to the Appellate Court for decision on merit within specific period-Revision was allowed in circumstances. PLD 1965 SC 274 and PLD 1973 Quetta 24 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877): ----S. 12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Art. 113---Dismissal of suit for being time-barred---Maintainability---Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 28.01.2010, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.01.2014---Subsequently, a second suit was filed on 26.06.2014 based on the same cause of action---Respondent moved an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint due to the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Art. 113 of the Limitation Act---Trial Court dismissed the application; however, the Revisional Court allowed the appeal and rejected the plaint, holding that the second suit was time-barred by 33 days. ----Petitioner failed to state grounds for exemption from limitation under O. VII, R. 6, C.P.C. in the plaint---The court observed that it is the mandatory duty of the plaintiff to claim and justify exemption when filing a suit beyond the prescribed limitation period---The provision of S. 3 of the Limitation Act mandates that every suit filed after the limitation period must be dismissed, regardless of whether the limitation is pleaded as a defense. ----Cited Cases: Hakim Muhammad Buta v. Habib Ahmad PLD 1985 SC 153 Haji Abdul Karim v. Florida Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2012 SC 247 Muhammad Islam v. Inspector General of Police, Islamabad 2011 SCMR 8 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Limitation---Relevance of averments in the plaint---Court emphasized that while deciding an application under O. VII, R. 11, the contents of the plaint must be considered to determine whether the suit is barred by law---The court is not bound to accept every averment in the plaint as true, especially when contradicted by admitted documents or legal provisions. ----Cited Cases: PLD 1984 SC 289 PLD 1983 SC 344 1994 SCMR 826 1995 SCMR 459 ----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. Courts reaffirmed the principle that limitation is not a mere technicality but a substantive legal bar that must be enforced.