Summary: O.IX,R-9 preclude plaintiff to bring fresh suit for the same cause of action,when the suit already dismissed under O.IX R-8

Summary: S.23 Land Acquisition Act:Determination of market value/compensation of land

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss. 151 & 12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Dismissal indefault and for non-prosecution---Application for restoration of constitutional petition---Sufficient cause---Due diligence---Inherent powers---Scope---No question of fraud,misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction was involved in the present application---Courts shouldnot be loath/reluctant to exercise inherent powers, provided the party concerned had approachedthe court with due diligence and sufficient cause had been shown for its non-appearance on thedate of hearing---Sufficient cause was sine qua non for exercise of inherent powers---Lis shouldbe prosecuted without fault and default---Prayer to recall order should be backed by causeconsidered to be sufficient---Restoration of constitutional petition would not serve fruitfulpurpose---Proceedings should attain finality---Negligence with regard to non-appearance was onrecord---Applicant had failed to show due diligence and sufficient cause---Application forrestoration of constitutional petition was dismissed summarily. AIR 1977 SC 429 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Bar to furtherproceedings---Applicability---Provision of S. 12, C.P.C. was applicable to the proceedings in theconstitutional petition.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss. 11 & 12, O. II, R. 2, O. IX, R. 9, O. XXII, R. 9 & O. XXIII, R. 1---Bar to further suit---Scope---Provision of Ss. 11 and 12, C.P.C. would prohibit the institution and trial of suits incases covered by O. II, R. 2, O. IX, Rule 9, O. XXII, R. 9 and O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C. as courtspossessed powers to set aside their own judgments, decrees or final orders fraudulently orcollusively obtained.(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 151---Inherent powers---Scope---Courts had "inherent powers" to make such orders asmight be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court---Courtsshould not be loath/reluctant to exercise such powers provided party concerned had approachedthe court with due diligence and sufficient cause had been shown---Sufficient cause was sine quanon for exercise of such powers.

Summary: The background of the case is that the respondents claimed ownership of 1/4 share in the property through a disputed gift deed, allegedly executed by their father, Noor Hussain. The petitioners, who are also legal heirs of Noor Hussain, disputed the validity of this gift deed and filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of the gift deed, and permanent injunction. The issues considered in the case included the authenticity of the gift deed, possession of the property, entitlement to a decree, partition, and rent. The court found that the evidence presented by the respondents failed to establish the genuineness of the gift deed, and therefore, the gift was not valid. Additionally, the court noted that the delivery of possession, a necessary element for a valid gift, was lacking. As a result, the court set aside the judgments of the lower appellate court and upheld the judgment of the trial court, which had ruled in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners' claims regarding the property's ownership and the cancellation of the gift deed were accepted.

Summary: The case revolved around the murder of Maqsood Ahmad and the subsequent convictions of the appellants: Qamar Abbas alias Qamru, Dildar alias Dilu, Shahid Ali, and Muhammad Azam. The incident occurred when the deceased was traveling on a motorcycle, and he was shot by the appellants with firearms. The motive behind the murder is related to a land dispute between the complainant's family and the appellants. The judgment sheet details the witness testimonies, medical evidence related to the injuries sustained by the deceased, and the identification parade of the appellants. In this judgment, the Lahore High Court appears to have considered the evidence and upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants, with Qamar Abbas alias Qamru and Dildar alias Dilu sentenced to death, and Muhammad Azam and Shahid Ali sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellants were also ordered to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The judgment sheet provides an overview of the key aspects of the case and the legal proceedings.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Local Government Act (V of 2010)-------S. 37---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Local bodies' elections---Election Tribunal appointed commission, and on receipt of report passed order that vote ofreturned candidate might be considered and not excluded, while matter was still pending for finaladjudication---Validity---Impugned order had been passed without notice and behind the back ofthe parties which was contrary to law and in violation of judicial norms---Petitioner was an"aggrieved person"---Executive orders would carry independent and far-reaching consequences,legal repercussion and implications---Order which was void and without jurisdiction could not beallowed to occupy the field as illegality could not be allowed to be perpetuated---Impugnedorders were executive in nature but having far-reaching consequences and impact---Status of copetitioners could not be disturbed without adopting and observing a legal process recognized bylaw---Both the impugned orders were illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, without lawful authorityand void ab initio which were set aside---Constitutional petitions were accepted, incircumstances.Khadim Hussain and 12 others v. Gul Hassan Tiwano and 3 others 2014 MLD 574;Shamsul Haq and 8 others v. Mst. Ghoti and 8 others 1991 SCMR 1135; 2011 CLC 1303; 2009MLD 1059; 2005 CLC 11 and PLD 2000 Kar. 74 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. I, R.10---Balochistan Local Government Act (V of 2010), S.37---Constitution of Pakistan,Art.199---Constitutional petition---Interveners---Impleadment as a party---Scope---Impugnedorder would directly affect the interveners which had been passed in their absence withouthearing them---Interveners were not party before the Election Tribunal who were necessaryparty---No legal hitch, bar or impediment existed in making interveners as party---Applicationfor impleadment as a party was accepted and interveners were made party to the constitutionalpetition who would be treated as co-petitioners.(c) Administration of justice-------Basic purpose and object of the court was to do substantial justice between the parties and toachieve the object---Technicalities were to be avoided/over looked unless same would offerinsurmountable hurdles.(d) Administration of justice-------Order which was void and without jurisdiction could not be allowed to occupy the field asillegality could not be allowed to be perpetuated.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending