Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Muzaffar Ali Khan, filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 CPC against the judgment/order dated 27-11-2018 passed by the Additional District Judge Gilgit. The lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which sought to amend the plaint in a suit for declaration and possession of suit land. The petitioner contested that the impugned order was not legally justified and sought to have the application for amendment allowed.----Issues:Whether the proposed amendments to the plaint would change the nature and cause of action of the suit.Whether the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.Whether the application for amendment was properly drafted and justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the civil revision petition, reasoning that:The petitioner failed to specify in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC where the proposed amendments should be inserted or what specific portions of the plaint needed modification.The proposed amendments sought to change an admission in the original plaint regarding the land gifted to the petitioner's son, which is not permissible under established legal principles.The application for amendment was found to be vague, defective, and unsustainable in law.The court upheld the lower appellate court's judgment/order, finding it to be legal and in accordance with the law, requiring no interference.----Citations/Precedents:Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Code of Civil Procedure)Section 115 CPC (Revision)Section 151 CPC (Inherent Powers of the Court)----Judgment:The civil revision petition is dismissed.The impugned judgment/order dated 27-11-2018 passed by the Additional District Judge Gilgit is upheld.Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Affixation of court fee on appeals arising out of the judgments and decree of the Judge Refree Court will be covered under the provisions of Section 8 of the Court Fee Act, 1870, irrespective of the fact whether filed by the claimants or the acquiring department. Determination of compensation...Compulsory acquisition proceedings.

Summary: The order allowed the prosecution's application to recall, re-summon, and re-examine Niaz Ahmad Khan, ASI (PW-1), on the grounds that he had not stated the correct facts during the trial.The appellant's counsel argued that the order violated Section 150 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and that recalling and re-examining the witness would cause serious prejudice to the appellant. The prosecution defended the order. It acknowledged the court's authority to summon and examine witnesses, but it stresses that this power should be exercised judiciously, considering the interests of both parties. The court criticized the trial court for not providing plausible and balanced reasons for recalling the witness and states that such discretion should be exercised with caution. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the trial court, emphasized that recalling and re-examining the witness would not contribute to the discovery of truth but rather serve as an attempt to fill the lacunae of one party.

Summary: These orders pertained to the exhumation and autopsy of the petitioner's deceased wife, Shehnaz Bibi, following accidental firearm injuries. The petitioner opposed the autopsy, leading to legal proceedings.The petitioner's son accidentally shot Shehnaz Bibi on 08.11.2018, resulting in her death on 11.11.2018. The petitioner, not wanting a post-mortem, submitted an application to the police, which was declined. Later, Shehnaz's mother, Mst. Zohra Bibi, sought exhumation and autopsy, alleging intentional murder.The Magistrate, in an order dated 16.03.2019, approved the exhumation, and the petitioner challenged this in a Revision Petition, which was dismissed on 29.04.2019. Subsequently, the Magistrate, on 30.04.2019, directed the SHO to guard the grave and the hospital to conduct the autopsy, leading to the current petition.The petitioner argued that Zohra Bibi's application was mala fide, disregarding prior proceedings and the order of 11.11.2018. The petitioner contended that none of the legal heirs desired an autopsy.The opposing argument asserted that the application indicated the death resulted from a firearm shot, constituting an offense. The court concluded that the death was due to firearm shots and amounted to an offense under section 322 PPC.The court criticized the Magistrate's order of 11.11.2018, allowing the legal heirs to compound the offense without court permission. It deemed the order illegal, set it aside, and highlighted the state's duty in prosecuting such offenses. The petition was dismissed, and the DPO, Narowal, was directed to investigate potential misconduct by subordinates.