Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.11,Order XXIII, Rule 1 CPC:Earlier suit dismissed on technical ground,withdrawal of claim by some of plaintiff, not affected claim of others

Summary: The respondent filed an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) along with Section 151 CPC, claiming that an "accidental slip" had caused the omission of service charges amounting to Rs. 5,33,656.40 in the judgment and decree. The appellant, dissatisfied with this decision, filed the present appeal. The appellant's argument was centered on the absence of a contractual relationship between themselves and the respondent, as well as the contention that service charges were not eligible for inclusion in the judgment as per Section 27 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, a special law governing such matters. The appellant also disputed how the figure of Rs. 2,89,117/- was determined. The High Court reviewed the provisions of Section 152 CPC and Section 27 of the Ordinance 2001, emphasizing that the latter takes precedence in cases involving banking suits. Section 27 of the Ordinance 2001 allowed for the correction of clerical or typographical mistakes in judgments but did not extend to claims of "accidental slip." The High Court concluded that the application under Section 152 CPC was misapplied by the Banking Court, as the alleged accidental slip seemed to involve complex calculations and deliberations, not simple clerical or typographical errors. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the order granting the application to amend the judgment was set aside. High Court's judgment focused on the applicability of Section 152 CPC and Section 27 of the Ordinance 2001 in a case involving banking matters, ultimately ruling that the application to amend the judgment did not meet the criteria for correction under the relevant legal provisions.

Summary: The petitioners, represented by Mr. Salman Hamid Advocate, challenged the conversion of two roads, Khayaban-e-Mujahid and Khayaban-e-Shamsheer, into a single carriage road for heavy commercial and public vehicles. They argued that this conversion was unlawful, illegal, ultra vires, and unconstitutional. They claimed that the conversion had caused traffic disturbances, privacy infringements, and environmental and health issues. The judgment, authored by Justice Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui, highlighted that the conversion of the roads was done without adhering to legal requirements such as the Environmental Protection Act 1997, Karachi Building & Town Planning Regulations 2002, and other relevant statutes. The judgment noted that no consultation or approval was sought from the relevant authorities before making the conversion. As a result, the court declared the conversion unlawful and directed respondent No.2 to restore the original status of the roads. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal processes and seeking appropriate approvals when making significant changes to road infrastructure.

Summary: Scope of Arbitration Act,1940 Section 34-----The case involves a plaintiff, a public limited company engaged in the manufacturing, selling, and distribution of gases, seeking recovery of Rs. 65,76,233 from the defendant. The plaintiff had supplied various gases to the defendant as per agreements, but the defendant ceased payments in March 2009, leading to a dispute.Despite repeated demands for payment, the defendant issued post-dated cheques, which were subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff filed a suit under Order XXXVII Rule 1 & 2 CPC and also lodged an FIR for the dishonored cheques. The defendant, after being declared ex parte, filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, claiming the suit should be stayed as per the arbitration clause in the agreements.The court deliberated on precedents and arguments presented by both parties. The defendant argued for a stay based on the arbitration clause, while the plaintiff emphasized the absence of a genuine dispute and the defendant's default in payment.After considering the submissions, the court dismissed the defendant's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate any genuine dispute warranting arbitration. It highlighted that the dishonor of cheques constituted an independent cause of action, not subject to arbitration under Section 34. The court also distinguished previous cases cited by both parties based on their specific facts and circumstances.Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, denying the defendant's request for a stay and affirming the continuation of the suit proceedings.

Summary: Recovery of lethal weapon, medical report of injured and deceased, members of unlawful assembly, not entitled for concession of bail --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/147/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act(XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting, rioting armedwith deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, acts of terrorism---Bail, refusal of---Accusedpersons allegedly fired upon their rival group due to a dispute concerning possession of someproperty---Contention of accused persons was that allegations against them were general andit was yet to be determined as to which party was aggressor and who had been aggressedupon---Validity---While deciding a bail application of an accused alleged for committing anoffence under Ss.302 and 149, P.P.C, the paramount consideration should be that he wasmember of an unlawful assembly and the offence was committed in furtherance of commonobject---Where it appeared that it was in the knowledge of such an accused that the offenceshall be committed in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly, then everymember of such assembly shall be responsible for the act committed by any one of them---Allegation against accused of causing firearm injuries was supported by statements ofinjured prosecution witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C---Recovery of lethal weaponsfrom the accused persons and medical report of injured and deceased persons also supportedthe allegation against accused persons---Offence alleged fell within the prohibitory clause ofS.497, Cr.P.C---Accused persons being members of an unlawful assembly were not entitledfor concession of bail---Bail application of accused persons was dismissed in circumstances.2004 PCr.LJ 127 and PLD 1995-K 459 distinguished

Summary: Section 115 CPC---In routine concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below cannot be upset in reversional jurisdiction but when the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, the same cannot be considered as immune from interference by this Court---A beneficiary is bound to prove a transaction especially when the same is based on oral assertion---Offer, acceptance and transfer of possession are the most vital ingredients to prove a valid gift/tamleek---According to section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 a mutation should be attested in presence of the inhabitants of the vicinity (Jalsa Aam)---When the transaction otherwise has been proved spurious, the same cannot be allowed to hold the field for the reason that a reasonable time has lapsed after its attestation rather in such like matters the question of limitation becomes secondary---Entries in the revenue record in the shape of mutations are not conclusive proof of ownership until and unless the transaction on the basis thereof the same was attested is established through evidence. The revision allowed.