Summary: Art.128,129(g) QSO:Suit for joint possession of inherited property--ligitimacy of child not proved

Summary: S.13 Pre-emption Act.Art.117 QSO:Requirements of Talabs (Talb-e-muwathibat)

Summary: The petitioner claimed that these dowry articles were given at the time of her marriage to the respondent, but she was later turned out by him, and he retained the dowry articles. Initially, the Family Court had awarded a monthly maintenance allowance to Kalsoom Bibi and her child, along with maternity charges and the recovery of dowry articles or their price. However, the respondent filed an appeal, and the appellate court set aside the recovery of dowry articles while upholding the maintenance allowance. In this constitutional petition, the petitioner argued that she had provided substantial evidence regarding the financial status of the respondent, the description of the dowry articles, and the cultural custom of giving dowry. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and noted that the respondent's defense was primarily an evasive denial. The petitioner and her father provided details about the dowry articles, and her father testified about his financial capacity to provide dowry. The court also considered the number of guests at the wedding and the custom of giving dowry in rural societies. Ultimately, the court reversed the findings of the appellate court, holding that the list of dowry articles (Ex-P1) was sufficient evidence, and the absence of receipts was not unusual in rural societies. The court decreed the suit for the recovery of dowry articles or their price at Rs. 1,00,000/- while upholding the maintenance allowance awarded by the Family Court.

Summary: PLJ 2015 Lahore 303 [Multan Bench, Multan] -----Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908), Order XLI Rule 27 - Additional Evidence - Validity: Additional evidence is not routinely permitted unless it directly relates to an issue framed by the trial court. The appellate court possesses broad powers to allow additional evidence when it deems it necessary to pronounce a judgment that advances the cause of justice. Refusing such evidence, if essential to reach a conclusion, would neglect the court’s duty. A party to an appeal may request to produce additional evidence, but the appellate court has the final authority to determine its necessity, as it cannot be compelled to adopt any particular course [Pages 310, 312]. -----Production of Additional Evidence - Legal Position: The modern judicial approach favors allowing parties to present additional evidence if it has a decisive impact on the case's just resolution, thereby relaxing previous restrictions against filling procedural gaps [Page 313]. -----Background: The petition arises from a civil suit for declaration filed by the respondents, who are village inhabitants claiming a right to use a thoroughfare/common passage. The trial court granted the respondents’ request, issuing a judgment in their favor. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal, along with an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking to introduce additional evidence to support the appeal. The appellate court dismissed this application for additional evidence, prompting the petitioner to file a revision petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner is entitled to produce additional evidence in the appellate stage under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC. -----2- Can technicalities of law be disregarded to permit additional evidence if the petitioner claims it is necessary for a just decision? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the revision petition, reasoning as follows: The appellate court did not find it necessary to admit additional evidence for pronouncing a judgment, as required under Rule 27, Clause (1)(b) of Order XLI, CPC. The petitioner’s request for additional evidence, including certain revenue records and an official report, appeared to be an attempt to fill gaps in their case rather than presenting genuinely relevant information. The court emphasized that the admissibility of additional evidence in appellate stages is only granted when essential for a just decision and not as a means for parties to strengthen a weak case. The court ruled that without a valid "substantial cause," technicalities of law could not be overlooked to allow additional evidence. Thus, the petition was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Fazal Jan v. Roshan Din (PLD 1992 SC 811) Ghulam Zohra and others v. Nazir Hussain through legal heirs (2007 SCMR 1117) Syed Sharif-ul-Hassan v. Hafiz Muhammad Amin and others (2012 SCMR 1258) Hassan v. Hussain (1996 CLC 650) General Manager, Azad Kashmir Logging and Saw Mills Corporation v. Abdul Rehman and two others (2013 CLC 1473) Syed Muhammad Hassan Shah and others v. Mst. Binat-e-Fatima and another (PLD 2008 SC 564) Sher Baz Khan and others v. Mst. Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana and others (PLD 2003 SC 849) Nabi Bux and others v. Syed Mumtaz Ali Shah and another (2000 MLD 1318) Muhammad Qasim and 6 others v. Muhammad Hussain and 8 others (PLD 2001 Lahore 9) Muhammad Ramzan v. Fatima and 30 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 17)

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.365 PPCMere abscontion is not a ground for rejection of bail(Bail allowed)

Summary: S.283,285,143,145,341 PPCOwnership not proved (Petition dismissed)