Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
MESSRS BATA PAKISTAN LIMITED VS VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KARACHISOUTH
Summary: Summary pending.
LAKE FILLING STATION CNG STATION THROUGH PROPRIETOR VS DIVISIONAL MANAGERMS PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD
Summary: Summary pending.
AZHAR YOUSAF VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
MCDONALDS CORPORATION VS MAXFOOD PRIVATE LIMITED
Summary: Summary pending.
Mst ANWAR MAI vs GHULAM SARWAR and another
Summary: Summary pending
MST BAGHUL VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THARPARKAR
Summary: Summary pending.
SABIR HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
WARIS KHAN VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Summary: Summary pending.
HAJI LIAQAT ALI VS CH MUHAMMAD AFZAL SAHI
Summary: (a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976):
----Ss. 55, 62(3), 63
Election petition—Amendment in written reply—Scope and limitations—Respondent sought amendment in his written reply under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., claiming inadvertence in omitting objections regarding non-compliance with Ss. 55 and 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976—Petitioner opposed the application, contending that S. 62(3) of the Act permits amendments in the election petition but not in the written reply—Held, Tribunal possesses discretion to allow amendments in pleadings if necessary to determine the real questions in controversy—However, mere inadvertence, defined as lack of care or attentiveness, does not constitute a valid legal ground—Amendments that alter the complexion of pleadings or introduce a different cause of action cannot be permitted—Application dismissed.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908):
----O. VI, R. 17
Amendment of pleadings—Principles—Amendments are allowed to ensure a fair and effective trial but cannot introduce a new cause of action—Held, proposed amendments failed to establish necessity for determining the real questions in controversy—Allowing such amendments would amount to setting up a different defense—Application dismissed.
(c) Interpretation of Statutes:
Meaning of "inadvertence"—Lack of care, inattentiveness, or failure to act with due diligence—Mere inadvertence does not justify amendment of pleadings if it substantially alters the case—Reliance placed on PLD 1980 Lahore 495 and Black’s Law Dictionary.
----Cited Case:
Sh. Alla Uddin v. Shahid Qayyum (E.P. No. 105 of 2002)
Syed Akhlaque Hussain v. Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore (1977 SCMR 284)
Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Ilyas (PLD 1980 Lahore 495)
Mst. Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan (PLD 1985 SC 345)
----Disposition:
Application for amendment in written reply dismissed.
MESSRS ANTI TERRORIST SECURITY LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Summary: Summary pending.