Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Family Court (East), Islamabad, dismissing his application to dismiss a dissolution of marriage suit filed by the respondent on the basis of khula. The petitioner contended that the Family Court (East) lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the respondent had filed an earlier suit in the Family Court (West). The respondent argued that her residence had changed, which brought the case within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court (East). The petitioner also sought a review of the order and the appointment of a local commission to ascertain the respondent’s residence, which was similarly dismissed. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court (East), Islamabad, had territorial jurisdiction to hear the dissolution of marriage suit. -----2- Whether the respondent’s change of residence affected the jurisdiction of the court. -----3- Whether the petitioner's rights were prejudiced by the proceedings continuing in the Family Court (East). -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Territorial Jurisdiction: The court held that under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965, a family court within the local limits of the wife’s ordinary residence has jurisdiction to hear a dissolution of marriage suit. The address provided by the respondent in the second suit was within the jurisdiction of the Family Court (East), Islamabad. The mere fact that the respondent had filed a prior suit in the Family Court (West) did not prevent her from changing her residence and filing a suit in the appropriate court with jurisdiction over her new residence. --Change of Residence: The court recognized that family matters prioritize the convenience of the female litigant. The respondent’s change of residence justified filing the case in a new jurisdiction. Prejudice to the Petitioner: The petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would result from the case proceeding in the Family Court (East). The court emphasized that the procedural rules favor the convenience of estranged wives in such matters. The writ petition was dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Fozia v. Aziz Ullah (2010 CLC 403): Territorial jurisdiction prioritizes the ordinary residence of the wife. Shaheen v. Muhammad Ali (2006 YLR 59): Courts prioritize the convenience of female litigants in family disputes. Lakhi v. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab (2005 MLD 1994): Jurisdiction based on residence in family suits. Basharat Hussain v. Mst. Amna Hussain (2004 YLR 2446): Addressed territorial jurisdiction in family matters. Syed Zia ul Hassan Gilani v. Mian Khadim Hussain (PLD 2001 Lahore 188): Discussed the significance of residence in determining jurisdiction.

Summary: O.VII,R-3 CPC:Scope of Order VII Rule 3.

Summary: Execution Petition was rightly dismissed when payment, under the decree, was made to NAZAR, without making any effort for payment to the judgment debtor, which was condition precedent for the compromise decree.

Summary: The case revolved around the acquisition of land by a government entity for the construction of an office building. The initial compensation for the land was determined, and the landowners filed a reference under the Land Acquisition Act. The case went through various stages, including appeals and reviews, which resulted in changes to the compensation amount. The executing court concluded that these charges and interest should be automatically added to the compensation amount as per the Land Acquisition Act. However, the appellant argued that such charges and interest were not included in the original decree and could not be added during execution. The document cited legal precedents and Supreme Court judgments to support both sides of the argument. Ultimately, the appellate court allows the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and accepting the objection petition filed by the appellant. The court emphasizes that the executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the original decree and that any changes to the decree should be sought through appropriate legal channels. Overall, this document outlined the legal arguments and decisions related to the calculation of compensation charges and interest in a land acquisition case, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the terms of the original decree during execution.

Summary: It is also an admitted fact on record that there existed enmity between the parties. This creates doubt about the genuineness of the version given by the complainant. As far as defence plea is concerned, it is neither supported by any evidence nor is drawn out of the circumstances of the case. However, it is settled principle of law that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs. It was for the prosecution to prove the charge beyond any shadow of doubt. Moreover, the prosecution cannot take any benefit of weakness of defence plea. The learned trial court was not justified in convicting the appellants while basing upon such un-trustworthy, un-corroborated evidence and conviction passed by the learned trial court in the circumstances is against all cannons of law recognized for the dispensation of criminal justice. As per dictates of law, benefit of every doubt is to be extended in favour of the accused. Criminal Appeal is accepted.