Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- O. I, R. 10 & O. VI, R. 17 ---- Addition of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings ---- Civil Revision against partial acceptance of application for impleading parties and amending plaint ---- Petitioners sought inclusion of certain mutations, alleging they were fraudulent and related to the respondents' claims, impacting the suit's outcome ---- Respondents argued that the application was belated, causing delay in proceedings, and contended that a separate comprehensive suit should be filed for such claims ---- Court found that inclusion of the mutations was necessary to resolve the real issues between the parties, and their addition would not alter the suit's nature or the relief sought by the petitioners. Court ruled that such amendments could be made at any stage under Order VI Rule 17, CPC. ----Disposition: Civil revision allowed, with the court affirming the partial acceptance of the application for the addition of parties and amendment of the plaint.

Summary: "PLJ 2013 Lahore 368 (DB) [Multan Bench, Multan] - Present: Muhammad Qasim Khan and Ibad-ur-Rehman, JJ. National Bank of Pakistan, through Attorney (Appellant) vs. Khalid Javed Qureshi and 12 others (Respondents). ICA No. 1980 of 2012 in WP No. 12185 of 2011 and CM No. 2 of 2012, decided on 31.12.2012. -----Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, S. 3 & Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 12, Art. 151: The Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) was filed beyond the time limit, requiring a certified copy of the order or judgment. Time taken to obtain such copies was not excluded from the limitation period. Although attaching a certified copy to an ICA is not mandated, a liberal interpretation permits this as a convenience for litigants. If the delay in filing was due to the bona fide impression that a certified copy was necessary, this delay may be condoned in suitable cases where valuable rights are involved, and a strict dismissal would be inequitable. High Court Rules and Orders (Volume V, Chapter 1, Rule 4) specify a twenty-day filing period, yet the appeal was delayed by eight days. While no copy of the decree or order was required with the appeal memorandum, the limitation period under Rule 4 aligns with S. 12 of the Limitation Act. -----Background: The appellant filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) challenging an order issued by a Single Judge in chambers. The appeal was filed eight days late, and the respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal was time-barred, as no certified copy of the order was required for the ICA and thus time for obtaining it should not be excluded. -----Issues: 1- Limitation and Filing of Certified Copies: Whether the time spent obtaining a certified copy of the judgment should be excluded when calculating the appeal period under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court allowed the appeal, applying a liberal interpretation of High Court Rules, specifically Volume V, Chapter 1, Rule 4, which permits Section 12 of the Limitation Act to apply to ICAs. Although certified copies are not mandated, the Court recognized that a bona fide belief in the need for a certified copy justifies the delay in filing. Therefore, the eight-day delay was condoned, and the appeal was deemed timely. -----Citations/Precedents PLD 2005 SC 153: Clarifies limitations in filing appeals without attaching certified copies. 2011 SCMR 8: Reinforces strict adherence to limitation periods in appeals. PLD 1972 Quetta 97: Allows liberal interpretation of filing rules for timely appeal. 1901 CLC 1475: Supports the applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act for ICA filings.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.42 SRA,S.54 TPA:Suit for declaration--Sale mutation--Burden of proof--Sale transaction by pardanashin lady--Precautions--scope