Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) ----S. 7(2), Proviso---Additional evidence at a belated stage---Discretion of Family Court---Petitioner filed an application to submit additional documents regarding maintenance payments during proceedings for recovery of past maintenance and enhancement filed by respondents---Family Court rejected the application on the ground that the Act does not allow admission of evidence not appended with the written statement---Held, the proviso to S. 7(2) of the Family Courts Act empowers the court to allow additional evidence at any stage if deemed expedient in the interest of justice---Discretion under this proviso applies equally to both plaintiffs and defendants. (b) Constitutional Jurisdiction ----Art. 199---Writ of certiorari---Interference in interlocutory orders---High Court may examine interlocutory orders in constitutional jurisdiction when no alternate remedy is available, particularly where such orders affect the substantive outcome of proceedings or render them futile. (c) Relevance of Additional Evidence ----Assessment of relevance---Family Court failed to assess the relevance of the additional evidence sought to be submitted by the petitioner and instead dismissed the application solely on procedural grounds---Held, dismissal without considering the relevance of the evidence to the matter in controversy constitutes an error. (d) Fair Trial ----Opportunity to produce relevant evidence---The denial of the opportunity to present additional evidence without proper consideration of its relevance undermines the right to a fair trial---Courts are required to balance procedural rules with substantive justice to ensure equitable adjudication. Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned order dated 21-5-2014 set aside; matter remanded to the Family Court for a fresh decision on the application for additional evidence after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: O.XXVI,R-9 CPC:Appointment of Commission to make local investigation---Report of Commission,nature & binding force of

Summary: Change/correction of date of birth at the twilight of service. Law helps vigilant and not the indolent

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10---Suit for declaration---Cause of action and locus standi to file suit--- Scope--- Defendants moved application for impleadment as a necessary party in the suit on the ground that they were owners in possession of suit property---Application for impleadment was allowed and plaintiff was directed to file amended plaint---Plaintiff filed only amended title and did not file amended plaint to seek any relief against the newly impleaded defendants---Contention of defendants was that suit property had been transferred in their favour---Validity---Plaintiff ought to have filed an amended plaint if he was aggrieved by the claim of newly impleaded defendants---Declaration of status of suit property as village property could not be granted---Plaintiff was to claim declaration with regard to his personal right in the property, if the same had been denied by anyone---Plaintiff was not aggrieved by denial of any existing right in his favour he wanted that in future the proprietary rights might be conferred on him by regularization of land which he claimed to be under his occupation---Plaintiff having no proprietary right nor such right was under any threat, he was not entitled to seek any declaration---Present suit was filed after ownership rights with regard to suit property had already been conferred in favour of defendants through auction of government land---Defendants were in possession on the suit property---Plaintiff had filed present suit without any specific time/date of accrual of cause of action against the defendants---Claim of plaintiff stood demolished by the facts that defendants were owners in possession of suit land and despite such knowledge/ information, plaintiff had not shown any grievance against the defendants---Suit was dismissed for want of cause of action and locus standi to seek declaration, in circumstances

Summary: Trusts Act (II of 1882)--- ----S. 34---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(4)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.3(15)---Right to apply to court for opinion in management of trust property---Principal Civil Court of original Jurisdiction---Status---Petition under S.34 of the Trust Act, 1882 for reconstruction of trust deed---Question before the High Court was whether the Sindh High Court was the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction for purposes of S.34 of the Trust Act, 1882---Held, that distinguishing feature to hold the Sindh High Court as Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in Karachi and not a District Court was that except various districts in Karachi, the pecuniary jurisdiction of all district courts in Sindh or for that matter all over Pakistan was unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction and since the pecuniary jurisdiction of various district courts in Karachi was limited, therefore statuts of Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction could not be conferred on the District Court---High Court's jurisdiction in civil cases was therefore simply a District Court jurisdiction exercised by the High Court---Petition in terms of S.34 of the Trust Act, 1882 was, therefore, maintainable and was allowed, in circumstances.