Summary: Scope of doctrine of cause of action estoppel

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXVI, R. 9---Specific Relief Act (I 1877), S. 8---Suit for possession---Illegal occupation of land---Appointment of Local Commission for demarcation---Power of court---Scope---Contention of the petitioner/defendant was that Local Commission could not be appointed as it amounts to creating of evidence---Validity---Order XXVI, R.9, C.P.C. invests sufficient powers upon the courts to appoint the Local Commission for investigation so as to clarify itself as at the end of the day it is the court which has to decide the issue pending before it---No illegality had been committed by the courts below by ordering demarcation of the property in dispute so as to decide the controversy pending before it in a befitting and proper manner as demarcation did not mean that it was ordered for creating evidence for a particular party---Appointment of Local Commission qua demarcation was only to elucidate the pending matter and to verify the situation on ground enabling the courts to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, therefore, there was no circumstance to create evidence for any party, thus, the orders of courts below were in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Jalal Khan and 10 others v. Khandoo Malik and 24 others 2003 SCMR 1351; Rahim Bakhsh and another v. Civil Judge, Lodhran and 3 others 1985 CLC 387; Dr. Tahir Mahmood Awan v. Tariq Mahmood and another 2006 MLD 1457; Munawar Ahmad and others v. Rehmat Khan 2015 CLC 250; Vice-Chairman Punjab Bar Council and others v. Government of the Punjab and others PLD 2021 Lah. 544; Zainullah v. Hizbullah and others PLD 2022 Bal. 81 and Lahore Municipation v. S. Abdul Rahim and 3 others PLD 1973 Lah. 391 ref. Nazir Ahmad and others v. Muhammad Qasim and others 2004 SCMR 1292 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),O.XXVI, R.9---Order of appointment of Local Commission for demarcation by the Trial Court---Interference by High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction---Scope---Jurisdiction exercised by High Court is discretionary in nature and even if a relief can be granted to a certain party, the same can be refused on the touchstone of Art.199 of the Constitution and as the Trial Court deemed it appropriate to appoint a Local Commission (for its clarity), High Court had no mandate to doubt the wisdom of the Trial Court especially so when it is invested with the power to appoint the local commission, thus, any interference made by High Court would amount to stifling with the pending proceedings before the Trial Court which was not mandated by law. Abdul Rashid v. Pakistan and others 1969 SCMR 141; Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236; Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others PLD 1989 SC 166; Inayat Khan and others v. Allah Ditta and others 2007 SCMR 655; Ch. Muhammad Shafi v. Shamim Khanum 2007 SCMR 838; Muhammad Maqsood Sabir Ansari v. District Returning Officer, Kasur and others PLD 2009 SC 28; Tasnim Jalal and others v. Deputy Director, A.N.F. and others 2010 SCMR 72; Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan and another 2010 SCMR 105; Javed Masih and others v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others 2010 SCMR 795; Moulvi Muhammad Azeem v. Alhaj Mehmood Khan Bangish and another 2010 SCMR 817; Dr. Ayesha Sabir v. Fida ul Haq 2010 SCMR 1811 and Muhammad Arif v. Uzma Afzal and others 2011 SCMR 374 rel. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R.14---Non-production of complete evidence---Effect---Principle of preponderance of evidence---Scope---Partial closure of right of documentary evidence as a ground for closure of whole evidence---Legality---Right of production of partial documentary evidence does not mean that evidence (oral as well as documentary), which has already validly been produced and available on the record cannot be considered---Although civil suits are decided on the principle of preponderance of evidence, however, additional measures including appointment of Local Commission can also be adopted by the courts while adjudicating upon the cases depending upon its nature and requirement. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXVI, R.9---Report/opinion of Local Commission---Scope---Remedies---Opinion/report of the Local Commission is not binding on the court and once the report is submitted, opportunity is given to the contesting parties to file their objections, which will be adjudicated upon before placing reliance on the report---If no objections are raised, the court even otherwise can reject the report or order to appoint a new local commission (so that justice can be done). (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXVI, R.9---Word “elucidate”---Meaning---Word “elucidate” means to clear/clarify/illuminate/to shed light on. Ch. Muhammad Anwar ul Haq for Petitioners. Muhammad Maalik Khan Langah and Malik Masroor Haider Usman, Additional Advocate General Punjab for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 16th April, 2025. FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J.--- Through this petition, orders dated 06.03.2012 and 12.07.2012 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively have been assailed. By virtue of the former order a local commission for demarcation of the property in dispute has been appointed and through the latter, the same has been upheld.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Following points are discussed in this judgement: i) It is an oft repeated principle of law that when a decree is conditional and it stipulates the condition as well as the consequence of non-fulfillment of such condition the court would become functus officio on the target date. ii) Whether there is no period of limitation prescribed for prosecution of the revision application in the Limitation Act, 1908

Summary: If the Judge doubts the accused's physical and mental capacities, the procedure prescribed under Section 341 should be followed. However, if it is found that the accused cannot understand the proceedings, and trial results in conviction, the trial Judge is required to forward the proceedings to the High Court, if the evidence warrants so, but it cannot pass a sentence against him. The trial Court must forward the proceedings to the High Court to pass such orders as the High Court thinks fit.

Summary: A statutory authority / organization or an autonomous body must ensure its actions aligned with the principles of justice and settled law, avoiding the measures that contradict these norms.

Summary: According to Section 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the medical officer who will attend any person in injured condition is under all the obligations to inform about the arrival of medico legal case to the police and any failure on his part in this regard may lead to prosecution under section 187 or 202 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

Summary: The following points are discussed in the petition: 1. What is writ of quo warranto? 2. Principle of laches. 3. Question of territorial jurisdiction. 4. Principle of locus poenitentiae. 5. Past and closed transaction. 6. Bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in case of writ of quo warranto. 7. Article 242 of the Constitution.

Summary: ----S.302(b)-------Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence - Story narrated by eyewitnesses is not appealing to a prudent mind because as per contents of FIR three accused persons made three consecutive pistol fire shots each on the left side of chest of deceased, all the injuries have exit wounds. After receiving the 9th fire shot, he fell down. A man cannot remain static after receipt of single pistol fire shot on the left side of his chest and as such other eight entry wounds at the same locale are not possible, which fact makes the prosecution story highly doubtful. The appeal is allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge.

Summary: Summary pending