2016
MLD 618 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Ss.
5, Sched. & 14—Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance—Execution
petition—interim order—Appeal—Maintainability—Family Court ordered to pay
amount of decretal amount in installments—Contention of judgment-debtor was
that nothing was outstanding against him—Validity—Court below had calculated
the amount on the basis of its record—Nothing was on record to rebut the
conclusion arrived at by the court below—Impugned order being interim order did
not fall within the definition of a “decree” or a “judgment”—Appeal was not
competent in circumstances—Appeal was dismissed.
Citation
Name : 2016 PLD 73 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALI ADNAN DAR
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
S. 17-A—interim maintenance , fixation of—Procedure—Family Court had power to pass interim maintenance order at any stage of the suit—interim maintenance should be fixed after filing of written statement of the defendant.
Side Appellant : ALI ADNAN DAR
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
S. 17-A—interim maintenance , fixation of—Procedure—Family Court had power to pass interim maintenance order at any stage of the suit—interim maintenance should be fixed after filing of written statement of the defendant.
Citation
Name : 2016 PLD 73 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALI ADNAN DAR
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Ss. 17-A & 5, Sched—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A–Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 10-A—Constitutional petition–Maintainability—maintenance of minor child—interim maintenance , fixation of—Procedure—interim order—Appeal—Family Court fixed interim maintenance of minor at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month–Validity—Family Court had power to pass interim maintenance order at any stage of the suit—interim maintenance should be fixed after filing of written statement of the defendant—If defendant had found that same was excessive or if order suffered from any illegality, irregularity or same was arbitrary, fanciful, void ab initio, without jurisdiction or same had attained the status of final order, then the constitutional petition was maintainable—Constitutional petition was not maintainable where factual controversies were involved—Public Authority was required to furnish reasons for every order whether the same was executive or judicial and order for grant of interim maintenance allowance was not an exception—-Family Court while keeping in view prima facie status of both the parties fixed tentative interim maintenance allowance of the minor daughter at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month—Father was working abroad but he had not mentioned about his actual salary in his written statement—Amount fixed by the Family Court could not be termed excessive or in consistent with ostensible financial status of father in the given circumstances– Father was under legal as well as moral obligation to maintain and support his minor daughter as per Injunction of Islam—Impugned order could not be assailed in constitutional petition as statute did not provide any appeal against interlocutory order—Impugned order was neither void ab initio nor without jurisdiction and not a final order– Amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as an interim maintenance was sufficient to meet day to day expenses of minor daughter who was of only one and half year old—Family Court, while passing the interim maintenance was required to give the bear minimum to the minor—No illegality or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order—Both the constitutional petitions were dismissed in circumstances.
Side Appellant : ALI ADNAN DAR
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Ss. 17-A & 5, Sched—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A–Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 10-A—Constitutional petition–Maintainability—maintenance of minor child—interim maintenance , fixation of—Procedure—interim order—Appeal—Family Court fixed interim maintenance of minor at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month–Validity—Family Court had power to pass interim maintenance order at any stage of the suit—interim maintenance should be fixed after filing of written statement of the defendant—If defendant had found that same was excessive or if order suffered from any illegality, irregularity or same was arbitrary, fanciful, void ab initio, without jurisdiction or same had attained the status of final order, then the constitutional petition was maintainable—Constitutional petition was not maintainable where factual controversies were involved—Public Authority was required to furnish reasons for every order whether the same was executive or judicial and order for grant of interim maintenance allowance was not an exception—-Family Court while keeping in view prima facie status of both the parties fixed tentative interim maintenance allowance of the minor daughter at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month—Father was working abroad but he had not mentioned about his actual salary in his written statement—Amount fixed by the Family Court could not be termed excessive or in consistent with ostensible financial status of father in the given circumstances– Father was under legal as well as moral obligation to maintain and support his minor daughter as per Injunction of Islam—Impugned order could not be assailed in constitutional petition as statute did not provide any appeal against interlocutory order—Impugned order was neither void ab initio nor without jurisdiction and not a final order– Amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as an interim maintenance was sufficient to meet day to day expenses of minor daughter who was of only one and half year old—Family Court, while passing the interim maintenance was required to give the bear minimum to the minor—No illegality or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order—Both the constitutional petitions were dismissed in circumstances.
Citation
Name : 2016 CLC 81 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NADEEM
Side Opponent : ANEESA BIBI
Ss. 14 & 17-A—-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Suit for maintenance —Appeal—Appellate court upheld decree of maintenance of rupees thirty-five hundred per month on ground that no appeal was maintainable against maintenance for less than rupees five thousand—Validity—maintenance as a whole would determine pecuniary jurisdiction of appellate court—Under S.17-A of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, if defendant had failed to pay interim maintenance fixed by trial court, then not only right of defence could be struck off but decree could also be passed—Appellate court had incorrectly found that order of maintenance passed by Family Court was interim order under S.14(3) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, therefore no appeal could be preferred against the same—High Court, setting aside impugned judgment and decree, directed appellate court to decided appeal on merits—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NADEEM
Side Opponent : ANEESA BIBI
Ss. 14 & 17-A—-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Suit for maintenance —Appeal—Appellate court upheld decree of maintenance of rupees thirty-five hundred per month on ground that no appeal was maintainable against maintenance for less than rupees five thousand—Validity—maintenance as a whole would determine pecuniary jurisdiction of appellate court—Under S.17-A of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, if defendant had failed to pay interim maintenance fixed by trial court, then not only right of defence could be struck off but decree could also be passed—Appellate court had incorrectly found that order of maintenance passed by Family Court was interim order under S.14(3) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, therefore no appeal could be preferred against the same—High Court, setting aside impugned judgment and decree, directed appellate court to decided appeal on merits—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Citation
Name : 2016 CLCN 26 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Dr. AAQIB HABIB MALIK
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
S. 5, Sched—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of—Scope—Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower and dowry articles—Application for summoning of witnesses/scribe of receipts of dowry articles—Wife produced purchase receipts of dowry articles during her evidence—Husband/petitioner moved an application for summoning of witnesses/scribe of receipts produced in evidence—Family Court observed that objections, relevancy, admissibility and evidentiary value of the receipts of dowry articles would be decided at appropriate stage and defendant had not mentioned name, address and sufficient particulars of any witness to whom he wanted to summon through process of court; however, defendant-husband would be at liberty to produce any evidence/witness during his own evidence subject to all just and legal exceptions—Validity—Right of defendant-husband to produce evidence had not been closed by the Trial Court—Defendant-husband would be at liberty to produce any witness at his turn while recording evidence—interim order passed by the Family Court should not be brought to superior courts to obtain fragmentary decisions which would harm the advancement of fair play and justice, curtailing remedies available under the law—Husband had not been prejudiced by the impugned order—Constitutional jurisdiction was not to be exercised in routine but only to foster the ends of justice—Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in limine
Side Appellant : Dr. AAQIB HABIB MALIK
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
S. 5, Sched—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of—Scope—Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower and dowry articles—Application for summoning of witnesses/scribe of receipts of dowry articles—Wife produced purchase receipts of dowry articles during her evidence—Husband/petitioner moved an application for summoning of witnesses/scribe of receipts produced in evidence—Family Court observed that objections, relevancy, admissibility and evidentiary value of the receipts of dowry articles would be decided at appropriate stage and defendant had not mentioned name, address and sufficient particulars of any witness to whom he wanted to summon through process of court; however, defendant-husband would be at liberty to produce any evidence/witness during his own evidence subject to all just and legal exceptions—Validity—Right of defendant-husband to produce evidence had not been closed by the Trial Court—Defendant-husband would be at liberty to produce any witness at his turn while recording evidence—interim order passed by the Family Court should not be brought to superior courts to obtain fragmentary decisions which would harm the advancement of fair play and justice, curtailing remedies available under the law—Husband had not been prejudiced by the impugned order—Constitutional jurisdiction was not to be exercised in routine but only to foster the ends of justice—Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in limine
Citation
Name : 2016 MLD 742 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : TALHA ASIF TAUFIQ
Side Opponent : VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S. 17-A—-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Maintainability—maintenance of minor—Non-compliance of interim order of maintenance —Power of Family Court to decree suit—Averments of plaint not denied in written statement—Presumption—Conduct of father as to payment of maintenance —Relevance—Plaintiff/wife after dissolution of marriage, along with minor son, filed suit for recovery of maintenance , recovery of dower amount and dowry articles—Family Court passing order under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 fixed interim maintenance of minor—Defendant filed application and later Constitutional petition for modification of said interim order, which were dismissed—Family Court decreed the suit for non-compliance of said interim order of maintenance —Defendant took plea that trial court had not considered his financial position while fixing maintenance —Validity—Family Court under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 was empowered to grant interim maintenance and in case of non-compliance of interim order, court might struck off defence of defendant and also pass final decree—Under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, right of defendant as to further adjudication of question of maintenance was contingent right subject to fulfilment of contingency of S. 17-A—If defendant desired to contest suit, he was required to comply with interim order passed by Family Court under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964—Plaintiff had specifically stated in plaint all expenses being incurred by her family on minor and quantum of income being earned by defendant—Claim or allegation of fact in plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implications in written statement, would be taken to have been admitted by defendant—As averments made in plaint as to income of defendant had not been denied by him either specifically or by necessary implication, the same were, deemed to have been admitted—Conduct of defendant (husband) regarding non-payment of interim maintenance was also relevant which showed that he had come to court with unclean hands, as he had not complied with interim order of maintenance —-Constitutional jurisdiction of discretionary character could not be invoked as a matter of routine or be used as alternate of appeal or revision—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Side Appellant : TALHA ASIF TAUFIQ
Side Opponent : VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S. 17-A—-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Maintainability—maintenance of minor—Non-compliance of interim order of maintenance —Power of Family Court to decree suit—Averments of plaint not denied in written statement—Presumption—Conduct of father as to payment of maintenance —Relevance—Plaintiff/wife after dissolution of marriage, along with minor son, filed suit for recovery of maintenance , recovery of dower amount and dowry articles—Family Court passing order under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 fixed interim maintenance of minor—Defendant filed application and later Constitutional petition for modification of said interim order, which were dismissed—Family Court decreed the suit for non-compliance of said interim order of maintenance —Defendant took plea that trial court had not considered his financial position while fixing maintenance —Validity—Family Court under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 was empowered to grant interim maintenance and in case of non-compliance of interim order, court might struck off defence of defendant and also pass final decree—Under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, right of defendant as to further adjudication of question of maintenance was contingent right subject to fulfilment of contingency of S. 17-A—If defendant desired to contest suit, he was required to comply with interim order passed by Family Court under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964—Plaintiff had specifically stated in plaint all expenses being incurred by her family on minor and quantum of income being earned by defendant—Claim or allegation of fact in plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implications in written statement, would be taken to have been admitted by defendant—As averments made in plaint as to income of defendant had not been denied by him either specifically or by necessary implication, the same were, deemed to have been admitted—Conduct of defendant (husband) regarding non-payment of interim maintenance was also relevant which showed that he had come to court with unclean hands, as he had not complied with interim order of maintenance —-Constitutional jurisdiction of discretionary character could not be invoked as a matter of routine or be used as alternate of appeal or revision—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation
Name : 2016 MLD 742 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : TALHA ASIF TAUFIQ
Side Opponent : VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S. 17-A—-Scope—Non-compliance of interim order of maintenance —Power of Family Court—Family Court under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 is empowered to grant interim maintenance and in case of non-compliance of interim order, court may struck off defence of defendant and also pass final decree—Under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, right of defendant as to further adjudication of question of maintenance is contingent right subject to fulfillment of contingency of S. 17-A.
Side Appellant : TALHA ASIF TAUFIQ
Side Opponent : VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S. 17-A—-Scope—Non-compliance of interim order of maintenance —Power of Family Court—Family Court under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 is empowered to grant interim maintenance and in case of non-compliance of interim order, court may struck off defence of defendant and also pass final decree—Under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, right of defendant as to further adjudication of question of maintenance is contingent right subject to fulfillment of contingency of S. 17-A.
Citation
Name : 2015 YLR 1433 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAZIM
Side Opponent : MUNEER AKHTAR
S. 5, Sched.—Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss. 42 & 44—Writ petition—maintenance allowance to wife—Scope—Capacity of husband to pay maintenance as fixed—Non-framing of issue—Effect—Contention of husband was that wife had voluntarily left his house and she was not entitled for maintenance allowance—Suit was decreed concurrently—Validity—Wife was entitled for maintenance if she had obeyed the husband and was ready to live in his house but if she had left the house of husband voluntarily then wife was not entitled for maintenance —Duty of husband to maintain his wife was conditional upon performance of marital obligations—Wife was bound to guard the reputation, property of her husband in his absence and also her own virtue—maintenance allowance should be according to the financial position of husband—Family Court was bound to resolve the question of capacity of husband to pay maintenance —No issue, in the present case, was framed with regard to capacity of husband whether he had a source to pay the maintenance fixed by the Family Court—Non-framing of issues was not vital for a case if parties were vigilant on the point, if however the parties had led the evidence on the said issue then question could be resolved without framing the issue—Both the parties had led the evidence but Family Court had failed to resolve the question with regard to capacity of husband to pay maintenance —Family Court was bound to record findings with regard to capacity of husband whether he was in a position to pay maintenance charges claimed by the wife or not—Supreme Court had powers to decide any issue if there was evidence of the parties on record—Remand of case would further prolong the litigation and there would be undue burden on the parties—Both the courts below had not considered that husband had meager source to maintain his wife—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out—Attitude of husband towards the wife was cruel and he had ousted her from house after beating—Wife and minor children were entitled to maintenance —Husband or father could not be burdened for payment of maintenance beyond his capacity—Husband in the present case, was a Rickshaw driver and due to rising costs of living maintaining a wife and two minors in a meager amount of Rs. 5,000 per month was difficult but wife herself had demanded Rs.5000—Family Court had correctly concluded that wife/children were entitled for maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month and defendant was in a capacity to pay the said amount—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAZIM
Side Opponent : MUNEER AKHTAR
S. 5, Sched.—Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss. 42 & 44—Writ petition—maintenance allowance to wife—Scope—Capacity of husband to pay maintenance as fixed—Non-framing of issue—Effect—Contention of husband was that wife had voluntarily left his house and she was not entitled for maintenance allowance—Suit was decreed concurrently—Validity—Wife was entitled for maintenance if she had obeyed the husband and was ready to live in his house but if she had left the house of husband voluntarily then wife was not entitled for maintenance —Duty of husband to maintain his wife was conditional upon performance of marital obligations—Wife was bound to guard the reputation, property of her husband in his absence and also her own virtue—maintenance allowance should be according to the financial position of husband—Family Court was bound to resolve the question of capacity of husband to pay maintenance —No issue, in the present case, was framed with regard to capacity of husband whether he had a source to pay the maintenance fixed by the Family Court—Non-framing of issues was not vital for a case if parties were vigilant on the point, if however the parties had led the evidence on the said issue then question could be resolved without framing the issue—Both the parties had led the evidence but Family Court had failed to resolve the question with regard to capacity of husband to pay maintenance —Family Court was bound to record findings with regard to capacity of husband whether he was in a position to pay maintenance charges claimed by the wife or not—Supreme Court had powers to decide any issue if there was evidence of the parties on record—Remand of case would further prolong the litigation and there would be undue burden on the parties—Both the courts below had not considered that husband had meager source to maintain his wife—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out—Attitude of husband towards the wife was cruel and he had ousted her from house after beating—Wife and minor children were entitled to maintenance —Husband or father could not be burdened for payment of maintenance beyond his capacity—Husband in the present case, was a Rickshaw driver and due to rising costs of living maintaining a wife and two minors in a meager amount of Rs. 5,000 per month was difficult but wife herself had demanded Rs.5000—Family Court had correctly concluded that wife/children were entitled for maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month and defendant was in a capacity to pay the said amount—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation
Name : 2015 YLR 170 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : Mst. AMREEN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD KABIR
S. 5, Sched.—Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 44(2)—Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance—Past Main-tenance—Entitlement—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out with regard to fact of cruelty and ousting the wife from the house by the husband—Findings of Family Court and Shariat Court that wife had failed to prove that she was treated with cruelty and ousted from the house were based on evidence—Family Court was bound to award past maintenance to the minor when she was living with her mother since birth but no reason had been given for not awarding the same—Minor was entitled to maintenance allowance from the date of her birth—Husband was working abroad and he was maintaining his second wife who was a resourceful person—Court had power to grant maintenance keeping in view the financial position of father and his economic resources—maintenance allowance awarded to the minor was meagre keeping in view the rising cost of living and same was enhanced from Rs.2,000 per month to Rs. 4,000 per month as prayed for since from the date of birth of minor—Appeal was accepted partly to the extent of minor and was dismissed to the extent of wife.
Side Appellant : Mst. AMREEN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD KABIR
S. 5, Sched.—Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 44(2)—Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance—Past Main-tenance—Entitlement—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out with regard to fact of cruelty and ousting the wife from the house by the husband—Findings of Family Court and Shariat Court that wife had failed to prove that she was treated with cruelty and ousted from the house were based on evidence—Family Court was bound to award past maintenance to the minor when she was living with her mother since birth but no reason had been given for not awarding the same—Minor was entitled to maintenance allowance from the date of her birth—Husband was working abroad and he was maintaining his second wife who was a resourceful person—Court had power to grant maintenance keeping in view the financial position of father and his economic resources—maintenance allowance awarded to the minor was meagre keeping in view the rising cost of living and same was enhanced from Rs.2,000 per month to Rs. 4,000 per month as prayed for since from the date of birth of minor—Appeal was accepted partly to the extent of minor and was dismissed to the extent of wife.
Citation
Name : 2013 YLR 1839 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MAJEED
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Ss.14 & 17-A—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199— Constitutional petition—Maintainability— interim maintenance allowance—Interlocutory order—Such order did not have the effect of a final order, which had to be passed ultimately by the Family Court after recording evidence and assessing the paying capacity of the father/husband—Unless an order bears characteristics and effect of a final order, it could not be subjected to judicial scrutiny in proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution.
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MAJEED
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Ss.14 & 17-A—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199— Constitutional petition—Maintainability— interim maintenance allowance—Interlocutory order—Such order did not have the effect of a final order, which had to be passed ultimately by the Family Court after recording evidence and assessing the paying capacity of the father/husband—Unless an order bears characteristics and effect of a final order, it could not be subjected to judicial scrutiny in proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution.
2014
CLC 860 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss.
17-A & 5, Sched.—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional
petition—Maintainability—Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance—Interim
maintenance was fixed by the family court but same was not paid by the husband
and his defence was struck off—Contention of husband was that wife had refused
to perform matrimonial obligations and she was not entitled for any maintenance
allowance—Suit was decreed concurrently—Validity—Constitutional petition was
not maintainable as Judge family court was not arrayed as one of the
respondents—Husband did not challenge the validity of order by virtue of which
interim maintenance was fixed—Husband was estopped to question the correctness
of such order through present constitutional petition—Impugned order could not
be declared to have been passed without jurisdiction and lawful
authority—family court had rightly insisted upon implementation of order for
payment of interim maintenance—Section 17A of West Pakistan family court s act
, 1964 empowered the family court to strike off defence of husband who had
failed to pay interim maintenance and decree the suit without recording
evidence—Suit was rightly decreed by the court s below—Constitutional petition
was dismissed in circumstances.
2013
YLR 965 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S.
17A —Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition against interim
order—Maintainability—Conditions—Interim maintenance, order for—Suit for
recovery of maintenance allowance—Husband assailed order of family court
whereby he was ordered to pay interim maintenance during pendency of
proceedings; on the ground that the quantum of maintenance was
exorbitant—Validity—Husband had contended that he had recently been sacked from
his job—Disputed questions of fact s regarding job, source of income and salary
of the husband had been raised which could not be resolved in the
Constitutional Jurisdiction of High court and it was not possible to determine
the veracity of claims of husband without recording evidence—Such exercise
could not be undertaken in the Constitutional Jurisdiction of High court
especially when the finding was only tentative in nature and not final and
impugned order was interim in nature—Under Art. 199 of the Constitution,
petition against interim order was maintainable if the same was void ab inito,
without jurisdiction or had attained status of a final order—family court had
jurisdiction to fix interim maintenance allowance, therefore, the impugned
order did not fall within such categories—Legislature had under S. 14(3) of the
West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 had specifically prohibited filing of
appeal against interim order and if Constitutional Petition was allowed to be
filed against such order, same would tantamount to defeating and diverting
intent of the legislature—Petitioner had an alternate remedy available to him
by challenging impugned order in appeal which he may file against ultimate
order /judgment if passed against husband—Constitutional petition, being not
maintainable, was dismissed in circumstances.
2013
YLR 965 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S.
17A —Interim maintenance of minor—Object and purpose—Purpose behind S.17A of
the West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 was to ensure that during pendency
of proceedings before the family court ; financial constraints faced by minors
were ameliorated.
2013
PLD 64 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss.
17A & 12A, proviso—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional
petition—Interpretation of Ss.17A and 12A, proviso, West Pakistan family court
s act , 1964—Interim order fixing maintenance allowance—Time period for which
such interim order would remain valid—Scope—Joint reading of Ss.17A and 12A of
West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 revealed that when family court was
made competent to pass an interim order for payment of maintenance allowance,
it was also made incumbent upon the family court to dispose of the case pending
before it within a period of six months from the date of institution—Order
passed under S.17A of the West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 would be, at
most, effective for a period of six months, which time had been allocated by
virtue of S.12A for final disposal of a lis pending before family court —When
the maximum age of an interim order passed under S.17A of the West Pakistan
family court s act , 1964 expired, continuation of proceedings before family
court , would violate provisions of S.12A of the said act —Age of an order
passed under S.17A of West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 for interim
maintenance would at maximum be six months and if proceedings were not
concluded within such time in the main suit wherein interim order was passed,
the family court should not insist upon the implementation of the order of
interim maintenance—High court observed that family court had to report to the
High court for non-implementation of S.12A of West Pakistan family court s act
, 1964 or in case of failure of family court to do so, either party would have
a right to bring to notice of High court such illegality being continued in the
family court and High court shall then, either under proviso to S.12A of the
said
act or
under Art.199 of the Constitution, pass appropriate order and reconsider
quantum of maintenance—Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly
Civil servant acquitted from murder charge by paying Diyat – Service terminated due to absence being in detention and also the plea that payment of Diyat was equated with conviction – Held – offence was lawfully compromised. Such acquittal of civil servant could not be taken as his disqualification, coming in the way of his reinstatement.
Director General I.B. Vs. Muhammad Javed
2012 SCMR 165
njunction
Cheque
2014 CLC 1448
No need for specific extension if written statement is not filed
1999 SCMR 2215
NLR 2000 Civil 14
Undertaking on risks and costs 2008 CLC 1481
1981 PCLRJ 1018
1990 CLC 609
2006 CLC 1574
PLD 2002 DC 303
SITE PLAN
Site plan is not evidence and officer preparing site plan not saying a word in trial as to on whose pointation he prepared it. Held, no reliance can be place on it. PLD 1980 SC 185 Gul Mir.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence. PLD 1992 S.C. 211, Shamim Akhtar v. Faiz Akhtar etc.
Site plan by itself is not substantive piece of evidence so as to contradict ocular evidence. Site plans are prepared to appreciate or explain evidence on record. PLJ 1998 SC 1398 Sardar Khan etc.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence but it definitely has an evidentiary value regarding the matters which are the result of the observations of the I.O. and are not entered therein at the instance of the eye-witnesses. (D.B) PLD 1994 Pesh 176, Zarif Khan.
Site plan not substantive evidence, and cannot be used to contradict or discredit unchallenged evidence of witnesses. (DB) PLD 1985 Lah. 534. Abdul Aziz PLJ 1985 Cr. C. (Lah.) 446.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence, but is not to be discarded altogether. It reflects the prosecution story as it is prepared of the pointation of witnesses. PLJ 1983 Cr. C. (Pesh.) 67. Mati-ul-Haq etc.
Site plan is not substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to discard the evidence of a witness unless he was confronted with the site-plan. 1996 SCMR 908, Muhammad Iqbal etc v. Muhammad Akram etc.
Site plan; position of P.Ws not indicated it does not mean that they did not see the occurrence. (SC) NLR 1981 Cr. 14 Ali Sher. PLD 1980 SC 317 = PLJ 1980 SC 487.
Site plan, no mention of P. Ws. on whose pointation site plan was prepared . no evidentiary value attached to such site plan. PLJ 1980 SC 293 Gul Mir.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be relied upon for locating the exact spot of persons present there. (DB) NLR 1982 Cr. 454 Fazal Anwar. PLJ 1982 Cr. C. (Pesh.) 382.
Site plan. Information derived from witness during police investigation and recorded in the index to a map must be proved by the witness concerned and not be the Investigating Officer, as it offends against section 162. Cr.P.C. (DB) AIR 1944 Cal. 339 Akanda.
Site plan not showing place from where empty cartridge recovered. Place not shown to the person preparing the site plan. Recovery held doubtful. (DB) 1973 P.Cr. LJ 675. Saeed.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to contradict or discredit unchallenged evidence of prosecution eye-witnesses. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 234. Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Yousaf etc.
Site plan, witness. Eye-witnesses showing to be nearer to the place of occurrence than the police record shows, disbelieved. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 151. Abdul Razik.
Site plan-Position of eye-witness. Omission to indicate in site plan position of eye-witness at the time of the occurrence, reflects on the possibility of such witnesses not being present at all at the time of occurrence. (SC) 1968 SCMR 161. Mehr Ali. (DB) 1978 P.Cr. LJ 24 Khan.
Showing position of witness in site plan is not obligatory either under Cr. P.C. or Police Rules. Site Plan is only a supporting document to understand the location of the incident. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Q) 1527, Khawand Bux etc.
Distances indicated in site plan ruling out scorching. The witnesses sticking to the distances indicated in the site plan, such testimony, held, doubtful PLJ 1983 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 67. Mati-ul-Haq. etc.
Site plan and inquest report regarding recovery of dead body of deceased not corroborated by trace of dragging or trail of blood anywhere near the spot. Prosecution case. held, doubtful. 1985 SCMR 843. Muhammad Akram.
Site plan can be referred to for determining the respective positions of the accused and the deceased when the site plan is prepared by a draftsman on the pointation of eye-witnesses. 1997 SCMR 89, Muhammad Ahmed.
Conflict of medical evidence with site plan ignored in the presence of direct and consistent ocular account, sentence maintained. (DB) PLD 1999 Pesh.
Site plan is not evidence and officer preparing site plan not saying a word in trial as to on whose pointation he prepared it. Held, no reliance can be place on it. PLD 1980 SC 185 Gul Mir.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence. PLD 1992 S.C. 211, Shamim Akhtar v. Faiz Akhtar etc.
Site plan by itself is not substantive piece of evidence so as to contradict ocular evidence. Site plans are prepared to appreciate or explain evidence on record. PLJ 1998 SC 1398 Sardar Khan etc.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence but it definitely has an evidentiary value regarding the matters which are the result of the observations of the I.O. and are not entered therein at the instance of the eye-witnesses. (D.B) PLD 1994 Pesh 176, Zarif Khan.
Site plan not substantive evidence, and cannot be used to contradict or discredit unchallenged evidence of witnesses. (DB) PLD 1985 Lah. 534. Abdul Aziz PLJ 1985 Cr. C. (Lah.) 446.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence, but is not to be discarded altogether. It reflects the prosecution story as it is prepared of the pointation of witnesses. PLJ 1983 Cr. C. (Pesh.) 67. Mati-ul-Haq etc.
Site plan is not substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to discard the evidence of a witness unless he was confronted with the site-plan. 1996 SCMR 908, Muhammad Iqbal etc v. Muhammad Akram etc.
Site plan; position of P.Ws not indicated it does not mean that they did not see the occurrence. (SC) NLR 1981 Cr. 14 Ali Sher. PLD 1980 SC 317 = PLJ 1980 SC 487.
Site plan, no mention of P. Ws. on whose pointation site plan was prepared . no evidentiary value attached to such site plan. PLJ 1980 SC 293 Gul Mir.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be relied upon for locating the exact spot of persons present there. (DB) NLR 1982 Cr. 454 Fazal Anwar. PLJ 1982 Cr. C. (Pesh.) 382.
Site plan. Information derived from witness during police investigation and recorded in the index to a map must be proved by the witness concerned and not be the Investigating Officer, as it offends against section 162. Cr.P.C. (DB) AIR 1944 Cal. 339 Akanda.
Site plan not showing place from where empty cartridge recovered. Place not shown to the person preparing the site plan. Recovery held doubtful. (DB) 1973 P.Cr. LJ 675. Saeed.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to contradict or discredit unchallenged evidence of prosecution eye-witnesses. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 234. Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Yousaf etc.
Site plan, witness. Eye-witnesses showing to be nearer to the place of occurrence than the police record shows, disbelieved. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 151. Abdul Razik.
Site plan-Position of eye-witness. Omission to indicate in site plan position of eye-witness at the time of the occurrence, reflects on the possibility of such witnesses not being present at all at the time of occurrence. (SC) 1968 SCMR 161. Mehr Ali. (DB) 1978 P.Cr. LJ 24 Khan.
Showing position of witness in site plan is not obligatory either under Cr. P.C. or Police Rules. Site Plan is only a supporting document to understand the location of the incident. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Q) 1527, Khawand Bux etc.
Distances indicated in site plan ruling out scorching. The witnesses sticking to the distances indicated in the site plan, such testimony, held, doubtful PLJ 1983 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 67. Mati-ul-Haq. etc.
Site plan and inquest report regarding recovery of dead body of deceased not corroborated by trace of dragging or trail of blood anywhere near the spot. Prosecution case. held, doubtful. 1985 SCMR 843. Muhammad Akram.
Site plan can be referred to for determining the respective positions of the accused and the deceased when the site plan is prepared by a draftsman on the pointation of eye-witnesses. 1997 SCMR 89, Muhammad Ahmed.
Conflict of medical evidence with site plan ignored in the presence of direct and consistent ocular account, sentence maintained. (DB) PLD 1999 Pesh.
Qanoon-e-Shahadat
(10 of 1984)
2016 Y L R 251 (b)
[Lahore]
[Amin-u-Din Khan, J]
{Mrs. PERIN J. DINSHAW}
Vs
{Mubarak Ali & another}
Arts. 59, 60 & 61 … Opinion of hand writing Expert … Scope … Report of handwriting expert, being opinion of such expert, was not binding on the court under the law … Opinion of expert was relevant but same did not amount to conclusive proof … Opinion of handwriting expert was a very weak type of evidence and same was only confirmatory or explanatory of direct or circumstantial evidence … Confirmatory evidence could n0ot be given preference where confidence inspiring evidence was available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Y L R 172 (c)
[Peshawar]
[Muhammad Daud Khan, J]
{Mst, Razia Bagum}
Vs
{Adam Khan & another}
Art. 79 … Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 3 … Attesting witness and attestation in relation to instrument … Meaning and scope … Necessary conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Y L R 100 (b)
[Sindh]
[Nazar Akber, J]
{Muhammad Ayub}
Vs
{Miss Ambreen Naz}
Art. 103 … Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement … Scope … Written agreement could not be defeated by an oral agreement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Y L R 188 (e)
[Balochistan]
[Muhammad Ejaz Sawati, J]
{Abdul Zaheer}
Vs
{Khud-e-Dad & others}
Art. 129 (g) … Court may presume existence of certain facts … Best evidence, which could be produced by defendants, had not been produced and had been intentionally withheld, for which adverse inference was to be taken against them under Art. 129(g), Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984
(10 of 1984)
2016 Y L R 251 (b)
[Lahore]
[Amin-u-Din Khan, J]
{Mrs. PERIN J. DINSHAW}
Vs
{Mubarak Ali & another}
Arts. 59, 60 & 61 … Opinion of hand writing Expert … Scope … Report of handwriting expert, being opinion of such expert, was not binding on the court under the law … Opinion of expert was relevant but same did not amount to conclusive proof … Opinion of handwriting expert was a very weak type of evidence and same was only confirmatory or explanatory of direct or circumstantial evidence … Confirmatory evidence could n0ot be given preference where confidence inspiring evidence was available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Y L R 172 (c)
[Peshawar]
[Muhammad Daud Khan, J]
{Mst, Razia Bagum}
Vs
{Adam Khan & another}
Art. 79 … Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 3 … Attesting witness and attestation in relation to instrument … Meaning and scope … Necessary conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Y L R 100 (b)
[Sindh]
[Nazar Akber, J]
{Muhammad Ayub}
Vs
{Miss Ambreen Naz}
Art. 103 … Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement … Scope … Written agreement could not be defeated by an oral agreement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Y L R 188 (e)
[Balochistan]
[Muhammad Ejaz Sawati, J]
{Abdul Zaheer}
Vs
{Khud-e-Dad & others}
Art. 129 (g) … Court may presume existence of certain facts … Best evidence, which could be produced by defendants, had not been produced and had been intentionally withheld, for which adverse inference was to be taken against them under Art. 129(g), Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984
PARTITION SUITS AND ITS METHODOLOGY
By
ABDUL ZAKIR TAREEN
Advocate, High Court, Peshawar.
In Courts of Pakistan huge number of partition suits are pending adjudication. As there is no proper mechanism with revenue hierarchy/revenue department or other law enforcing institutions to make partitions of properties without constraining the owners to approach the Courts of law. The difference of opinion and ill-unionship is a natural thing in a society and normally the people cannot survive in joint venture and to live an independent life or to utilize the property in his own manner, they are constrained to get divide their properties but through the course of law.
In partition suits there is no loser and both the parties are to be called winner but if the possession of the property is in the hands of tress-passer, then he can be loser of partition suit.
Partition is recognized by the legal maxim "Nemo in Communione potest invitus detineri", no one can be kept in co-proprietorship against his will. Partition is merely an arrangement whereby co-sharers having undivided interest in joint properties take by arrangements specific properties in lieu of their shares.
For partition suits the property can be divided in three types:
(i) Pure Agricultural Properties,
(ii) Agricultural and Constructed mixed properties, and
(iii) Pure Constructed Properties (in the shape of houses, shops, markets and etc).
Undoubtedly relief for partition in respect of agricultural properties can be sought from Revenue Officer under Chapter XI Section 135 and other relevant sections of this chapter.
Similarly if the property subject of partition is partly agricultural and partly constructed, then as per law laid down by the Superior Courts, it will be analyzed that whether which type of property has a major portion, if agricultural then Revenue Courts will be approached, otherwise relief for partition will be obtained from Ordinary Civil Courts of Law.
So far as pure constructed properties are concerned, they can be got divided from ordinary civil Courts through a suit for partition under the Partition Act, 1893.
PRE-CAUTIONS IN PARTITION SUITS:
(i) (JURISDICTION):
Case must be filed in the appropriate Court of jurisdiction. While assessing the question of jurisdiction, first of all territorial jurisdiction should be ascertained and the suit for partition in respect of immovable property must be filed having regard to Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, and ordinarily it is to be filed in that Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the immovable property is situated.
Secondly, subject matter jurisdiction must be assessed as highlighted above, suits in respect of pure agricultural property or major portion of agricultural property is to be filed in Revenue Courts, and regarding constructed property or major portion of constructed property is to be filed in Civil Courts. In case titled: Qamar Sultan Vs Mst. Bibi Sufaidan, reported in 2012 SCMR 695, it was held that, "Jurisdiction in respect of partition of agricultural property and to grant relief would lay with the revenue Court".
While dealing with the matter of jurisdiction the Court should have to take great care for deciding that whether the suit property is an agricultural one or constructed/commercial. In case titled: Sher Ahmad Khan Vs Sardar Khan, reported in 2008 PLD 97 Peshawar, it was held that, "if the land was agricultural, then the partition of the same was exclusively amenable to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of S. 172, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 was barred which proposition, however, was subject to one exception that if the agricultural land would lose its character and would become building site or commercial area, then the civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit with respect to its partition. Whether the land or its major portion was covered by abadi or the same was exclusively agricultural land, was a spot related question, which could be determined by the Trial Court after the appointment of a local commission who, after visiting the spot, would be in a position to determine the nature of the property".
In case titled: Jamal ud Din Vs Haji Gul Khan, reported in 2012 CLC 1353 Quetta, the august superior Courts provided a procedure for preferring the matter of partition to a Revenue Court and held that, "Party interested in partition of his share in suit property, had to make an application for partition of the land to a Revenue Officer as per provision of S. 135 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967".
The Revenue Officer while dealing with the partition of the property could decide only question of title in property to be partitioned while acting as a civil Court of competent jurisdiction, but could not decide all other questions falling within jurisdiction of Civil Court. In case titled: Mst. Farzana Vs Mst. Sehti, reported in 2012 PLD 241 Karachi, it was held that, "Revenue Officer while deciding questions as to property to be partitioned or mode of its partition would act only as Revenue Officer, but not as a revenue Court or civil Court".
Revenue Officer can decide matter of title in the immovable property and if he thinks fit, then he can sent the same matter to the Civil Court for deciding matter of title to the immovable property. In case titled: Muhammad Yousaf Khan Vs Board of Revenue, reported in 2002 CLC 739 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, it is held that, "Where question of title would arise in property to be partitioned, Revenue Officer could himself determine question of title or refer matter to Civil Court for its determination".
(ii) (PARTIES).
All Co-sharers in the joint properties are to be arrayed as a party to the partition case and no name should be left from impleadment, in order to save the suit from the plea of non-joinder.
In case titled: Syed Ain Ullah vs Dilber and others, reported in 2013 MLD 708 Baluchistan, it was held that, "dismissal of suit on the basis of non-joinder of a necessary party was an erroneous decision as under Order I Rule 9, CPC, no suit shall be defeated by the reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the trial Court was empowered to implead a person to the proceedings who it deemed to be necessary for determination of matter in issue".
In case titled: Muhammad Younas Sheikh Vs Corex enterprises and another, reported in 2007 MLD 508 Karachi, it was held that, "Suit would not be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the Court could deal with the matter in controversy so far as regarded the rights and interests of the parties actually before it".
Similar guideline is also provided in the below mentioned rulings of superior Courts that mis-joinder or non-joinder is not fatal to the suit, those judgments are as under:
a. 2011 YLR 1999 Quetta, b. 2011 SCMR 1460,
c. 2010 MLD 1596 Quetta, d. 2007 SCMR 729 Citation (n).
Keeping in mind the afore-referred verdicts of the august superior Courts, though mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties is not fatal to the civil litigation and the trial Court is supposed to determine the issue even in those suits in which this defect is present. But at the same time the law advises that all parties having an interest in the subject matter of the suit should be arrayed as a party either in the panel of plaintiffs or defendants. So great care should be made that in suit for possession through partition all the co-sharers/Khata shareek are joined as a party.
(iii) (FULL PARTITION SUIT IS TO BE BROUGHT AND NOT FOR PARTIAL PARTITION).
All properties which are in joint venture of the parties are to be included in the partition suit, in order to save the suit from the question of Partial Partition.
In case titled: Noor Muhammad and others Vs Allah Ditta and others, reported in PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198 citation (C), the august Apex Court held that, "Co-owner in a joint property was not entitled without assent or acquisance of the other co-sharers, to exclude portion of joint property or to select a particular portion for the purpose of partition. Co-sharer was required to seek the partition of the landed property as a whole".
In case titled: Ghulam Rasool and another Vs Muhammad Khalid and others, reported in 2006 YLR 2289 Lahore, the august Court held that, "party opting to come for partition was not permitted to pick and choose and to have share in valuable parts of the joint holdings by leaving out its parties with lesser value, suit found to be for partial partition was not maintainable".
In case titled: Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas Vs Barkat Ali and another, reported in 1999 YLR 2190 Lahore citation (b), the Hon'ble Court held that, "partition of holding could not be affected without including the entire land of property, partial partition was bad in law".
(iv) (NO PRIOR PARTITION OR PRIVATE SETTLEMENT/KHANGI TAQSEEM).
The suit must be in respect of those joint properties in respect of which neither any regular partition was made priorly nor the properties should have been divided through private settlement/Khangi Taqseem.
To prove private partition, party should have to produce/exhibit order of partition or copy of Roznamcha Waqiati showing delivery of possession or Tatimma made in favour of co-sharer/party.
The fact of Private partition is always considered in the course of litigation, as such sanctity is available to the same. In a case titled: Irshad alieas Abdul Rahim Vs Ashiq Hussain, reported in 2007 PLD 421 Karachi, the Hon'ble Court held that, "Private arrangement and partition deserves the same sanctity which a lawful contract deserves and should not be interfered within any legal proceedings unless the private arrangement or partition is otherwise not legally permissible".
If a dispute between the co-sharers arises in a situation when private partition has been arrived between them, but they have no formal partition deed in their hands or it has been lost, then in such like circumstances, the possession of respective party would be of great importance in determining the real issue of private partition. In case titled: Naveed Ahmad Vs Iqbal Begum, reported in 2006 YLR 2341 Lahore, it is held that, "Private Partition between the parties--
—Absence of formal partition deed—Question of possession would assume critical significance".
Private partition should be proved independently.
(v) (CO-SHARERSHIP).
It is to be established that the claimant is co-sharer in the property subject of partition.
In case titled: Gulzar Begum Vs Mehboob Hussain alias Mehboob Khan, reported in 2012 YLR 809 High Court AJK, the Hon'ble Court held that, "Possession on the said land could not be distributed till partition of the same in accordance with law was not made".
In another case titled: Muhammad Ismail Vs Ghulam Sarwar, reported in 2008 YLR 420 Lahore, the remedy was given to a co-sharer who desired to get possession of his share in an undivided property and it is held that, ''only manner in which the plaintiffs could get possession was by filing a suit for partition and separate possession".
Sometimes a question arises that whether a co-sharer can sell his share in the joint khata or not. This question is resolved by the august Lahore High Court in case titled: Abdul Ghaffar Vs Waqas Hafeez, reported in 2010 CLC 285 Lahore, it was held by the august Court that, "Co-sharer in possession in a khata has a right to alienate a specific piece of land in his possession and the transferee acquires the same rights as the transferor".
It is the basic right of each and every co-sharer that he can claim partition of the joint property at any time and there is no limitation against such claim. This preposition has been set by worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Rafiq, reported in 2004 SCMR 1036 Supreme Court, wherein it is held that, "Partition could be claimed by any of the joint owners during currency of joint ownership without limitation of any period in that behalf, so long as his right was not denied".
In case titled: Ashiq Hussain Vs Prof. Muhammad Aslam, reported in 2004 MLD 1844 Lahore, it is held that, "suit for permanent injunction against the other co-sharers was not maintainable except by bringing a suit for partition of joint property".
TRIAL OF PARTITION BY CIVIL COURT:
In partition suits ordinarily the civil Courts bifurcate the claim into two rounds/stages:
(a) First round/stage is finalized on preliminary decree of the partition suits or if some flaws highlighted here-in-above are involved, then it is dismissed.
In the preliminary round of litigation of partition suits, the trial Court mainly checked the question of jurisdiction, the entitlement/co-sharership of the parties, and other merits of the case and if the case is made out by the claimant, then in this round of litigation the Court determines the shares of the parties in joint property.
(b) Second round/stage is called final decree proceedings. In this round application for the grant of final decree is filed by the decree holder, on the basis of which issues notice to the respondents, and if they contest the same, they file reply. The Court after hearing the parties appoints a local commission under Section 75 read with order 26 of CPC for determination of mode of partition. The commission as per directions of the Court visits the property subject of partition and examines it, whether it is partitionable or not. If it is not partitionable then the local commissioner evaluate the market value of the decretal property and thereafter he submits his report. The Court passes order of sale of decretal property and then passes order of division of proceeds of sale between the parties in accordance with their determine shares.
The report of local commissioner in determining the actual position of the property sought to be partitioned is of much importance, as the same can help the Court for determining the fact that whether the property is partitionable or not and if partitionable then what should be the criteria for its partition.
If the property is partitionable then the local commission in the presence of the parties and record keeper of the property, if any, suggests the mode of partition. He prepares a sketch/map of the spot. Legally speaking the local commission keeping in mind the possession of each party, their shares, the valuable and priceless portions of the property, the construction if any, suggests the mode of partition keeping in mind this notion that every co-sharer must received the constructed portion, valuable and priceless portion as that all them are equally accommodated. Thereafter, the local commission submits its report, the Court invites the objections if any, of the parties, examine the local commission, if necessary and either confirmed or set aside the commission report. If it is set aside, then the Court appoints another commission with the same directions and work, otherwise in case of confirmation of the commission report, the Court passes final decree.
Thereafter, the decree holder brings an execution application for getting possession on the spot in accordance with the final decree.
It also pertinent to mention that the outcome of first round of partition suit i.e. preliminary decree is always subject to appeal, then revision or second appeal, and finally it is also challengeable before the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction envisaged under Article 185 of the Constitution. Similarly the final decree if the parties so desires, can be challenged through the same process, appeal, revision/second appeal and appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution, and the last stage is the execution as mentioned above.
TO GET REMEDY IN CASES OF PARTITION IS TIME CONSUMING PROCESS:
A huge number of suits for partition are pending before different Civil Courts of Pakistan and a great number of civil appeals, civil revision and CPLA are pending before District Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court of Pakistan. As observed above, that as there is no direct/automatic mechanism for partition/division of immovable properties except the litigation, a large number of people are making visits of different Courts for getting relief. It is also observed that even a suit for partition take great time in civil Court, if we roughly calculate it takes:
(i) Six years in civil/Trial Court;
(ii) Two years in Appellate/District Court;
(iii) Six years in Revisional/High Court; and
(iv) Six years in Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Meaning thereby a partition suit takes minimum Twenty years. It must be kept in mind that in partition suits there is no concept of looser, both the parties if found co-owners, get relief and except the tress-passer both the parties are accommodated by the Court. But what happened practically, a partition suit is brought and the same is decided but at the end of the day it is defeated due to the below mentioned flaws:
i. (Jurisdiction).
ii. (Non-joinder).
iii. (Partial partition).
iv. (Prior partition or private settlement/Khangi Taqseem).
v. (No Co-sharership).
It is need of hour that the august Supreme Court of Pakistan like guidelines provided for rent cases, in case titled: Barkat Ali Vs Muhammad Ihsan, etc, reported in 2000 SCMR 556, also provides guidelines for partition suits and to declare it necessary that some proforma's prepared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan are to be made available with the partition suit at the time of its institution and these proforma must be filled by the counsel of the plaintiffs, signed by him and also by the plaintiffs. These proforma must relate to the issues mentioned below:
(i) The Court has got the jurisdiction,
(ii) All the co-sharers and necessary parties are impleaded,
(iii) The suit is regarding whole property and not for a particular portion,
(iv) There is no prior regular or private partition and
(v) The plaintiffs are co-sharers in the property subject of partition and there due share, if determined and known should be highlighted.
This effort will surely minimize the agonies of poor litigants who are visiting Courts for their suits regarding partition.
If both the parties claiming possession over the suit property, then such phenomena deals with the factual controversy and the same could only be resolved after calling of evidence from both sides. In case titled: Abdul Qadir Vs Sher Muhammad, reported in 2010 MLD 1596 Quetta, it was held that, "Section 54 and O.XX, R. 18, C.P.C. were to be observed while deciding the issues of partition".
PROCEDURE IN RESPECT OF PARTITION OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES IN REVENUE COURTS:
As explained in case of Noor Muhammad and others Vs Allah Ditta and others, reported in PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198 by the august Supreme Court that proceedings of partition of agricultural land before the Revenue Officers were not governed by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, particularly when the question of title was not involved, such proceedings being summary in nature do not partake the character of a civil suit necessitating the framing of issues or recording of evidence of the parties.
According to Section 142 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 the Revenue Officer was to decide the question by holding an inquiry as he deemed necessary.
Application for partition of agricultural property is to be filed under Section 135 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 by impleading all co-sharers as a party by joining complete property which is in joint venture of the parties. The Revenue Court after noticing the respondents and after getting replies, if any, from them will summons the patwari halqa and will direct him to prepare Naqsha "Alif', "Bay" and "Jeem".
(i) Naqsha Alif will show Shares/Hissas of parties in the property in question.
(ii) Naqsha Bay will show proposed Khasrawise shares of parties and basically in this document the mode of partition is determined and proposed Tatimaas are curved out. Basically this document denotes the division of shares and in Urdu it is known as (نقشہ ب،بٹوار).
(iii) Naqsha Jeem will show the proposal regarding the partition mutation and in urdu it is known as (نقشہ ج جدائی).
At the end the revenue officer will examine the record and will hear the arguments, if any, of the counsels of the parties and if there is no question of earlier private/regular partition or non-joinder or partial partition or jurisdiction or title dispute will allow the application and passed the order and issue "Sanad-Sultani" in favour of the applicants as per the above referred Naqshajaat. Thereafter, for practical possession, the applicant may apply to an through an execution application and finally possession is handed over to him on the spot.
Similarly as per decision, the revenue officer will enter and attest partition mutation and will curved-out the "Tattimaas" by dividing the available Khasra numbers in Bye-numbers.
In case titled: Khawaja Muhammad Arif Vs Mrs. Tahira Asif, reported in 2005 PLD 972 Supreme Court, it is held by the worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan that, "Decree of partition is an "instrument of Partition" and as such has to be engrossed on stamp paper and in case it is not done the decree can neither be executed nor could be acted upon". "Real test of "instrument of partition" is whether there was any property of which the parties were co-owners and the property was being divided by the deed in scverality, entitling the parties to the separate enjoyment of that property".
LEGAL AFFECT OF PRIVATE PARTITION OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY:
Private partition of agricultural properties between the co-sharers will have no legal affect until the same is affirmed by the Revenue Officer U/S 147 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, which provides that "In any case in which a partition has been made without the intervention of a Revenue Officer, any party thereto may apply to a Revenue Officer for an order affirming the partition. On receiving the application, the Revenue Officer shall enquire into the case, and if he finds that the partition has in fact been made, he may make an order affirming it and proceed under Sections 143, 144, 145 and 146, or any of those sections, as circumstances may require, in the same manner as if the partition had been made on at application to himself under this chapter.
In case titled: Noor Muhammad and others Vs Allah Ditta and others, reported in PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198 citation (C), the august Apex Court held that, "Private partition does not determine the legal rights but simply indicates the mode of division of property among them".
In case titled: Syed Musarrat Shah Vs Syed Ahmed Shah alias Lal Bacha reported in 2012 PLD 151 Peshawar, the august Court held that, "Mere entry of partition mutation, could not be declared to be sufficient enough to have the protection of law". If other steps have not been taken in respect of the affirmation of the private partition, i.e. inquiry about private partition, passing of order of affirmation of private partition, administration of property excluded from partition, distribution of revenue and rent amongst the co-owners after partition, instrument of partition and delivery of possession to all the concerned co-sharers according to the partition so reached between the parties.
OTHER ISSUES REGARDING PARTITION
UN-DIVISIBLE NATURE OF PROPERTY:
One another problem which is now a day very common and which the masses faces in the urban area is that sometimes the property is of un-divisible nature, so in such a situation if any one of the co-sharers files a suit for partition of the such property, then the Court should have to take great care in such like cases and should take assistance from law by applying S.2 of Partition Act, 1893. In case titled: Iqbal Ahmad Vs Mst. Aziz Bano, reported in 2010 MLD 784 Karachi, it is held that, "Provisions of S.2 of Partition Act, 1893, made it generally permissible that in a suit of such nature, a property if found incapable of being partitioned by metes and bounds, the same might be sold out and proceeds thereof might be distributed among the share-holders/co-owners to resolve the controversy between them in respect thereof as once for all".
RIGHT OF CO-SHARER TO BUY WHOLE UNDIVIDED PROPERTY WHICH IS OF INDIVISIBLE NATURE:
Once a preliminary decree is passed by a Court of law then the Court has left with no other option by to proceed under S. 3 of the Partition Act, 1893. This fact has further been confirmed by the verdict of the Lahore High Court, in case tilled: Firdous Begum Vs Mst. Salamat Bibi reported in 2008 CLC 248 Lahore, in which it is held that, "Once preliminary decree was passed, then provisions of S. 2 of Partition Act, 1893 would not apply and Court would have to pass final decree and resort to provision of S. 3 thereof and in case of failure of any share-holder to apply for leave to buy share, then property would be liable to be auctioned. Once property was found to be indivisible, then Court for effecting partition would have to follow procedure laid down in Partition Act, 1893 after providing opportunity to shareholders to apply for leave to buy property".
REMEDIES WITH THE PERSON/CO-SHARER WHO IS DISPOSSESSED:
In case titled: Contractor Haji Muhammad Alam Vs Shaukat Sultan, reported in 2009 SCMR 688, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "where a co-sharer in possession is dispossessed by another co-sharer, then he has two remedies to avail, he can either file suit for partition or a suit under S.9, Specific Relief Act, 1877".
In another case titled: Shoukat Sultan Vs Haji Muhammad Alam, reported in 2008 YLR 1698 Lahore, it is held the by the august High Court that, "where co-sharer in possession was dispossessed by another co-sharer, then he had two options, namely he could either wait and file suit for partition or he could file a suit under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877".
In another case titled: Niaz War Jan Vs Gul Nawaz, reported in 2007 YLR 1723 Peshawar, it is held by the august High Court that, "A co-sharer in possession of a joint property was not liable to be ousted therefrom, except on a partition by metes and bounds taking place between the co-sharers".
In case titled: Muhammad Riaz Vs Mumtaz Ali through Legal Heirs, reported in 2006 YLR 1071, it is held that, "where both the parties were co-sharers in the joint un-partition Khata and their remedy was to seek partition in accordance with law by impleading all other co-sharers in khata—If a co-sharer was dispossessed by another co-sharer his remedy was for partition of joint property or a suit under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, for possession but a regular suit under section 8 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, was not maintainable—Suit filed by the petitioner could not be treated to be one under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, as there was no specific averment that they were illegally or forcibly dispossessed from the land in dispute".
Remedies provided to the co-sharer who has been dispossessed has also been given by august Lahore High Court in case titled: Nazar Hussain Vs Additional District Judge, Chakwal reported in 2004 YLR 322, wherein it is held that, "Co-sharer in possession, if dispossessed had two remedies; one a suit for separate possession by partition; and the second a suit in accordance with terms of S. 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877".
MESNE PROFIT:
Any person in possession of the property enjoying benefit therefrom to the exclusion of rightful owner, he would be liable to pay rent or mesne profit to the person who has been dispossessed or deprived of his property. In a case titled: Muhammad Anwar Vs Dr. Gohar Ali, reported in 2007 CLC 621 Karachi, it is held that, "Co-owner in possession to the exclusion of other co-owner in such case, could be held liable to the extent of his unauthorized or hostile occupation, possession or enjoyment thereof. Once a person established and Court came to a conclusion that person was entitled to any right or share in the property; and he was being deprived of use of such right or share in property by the other person, then the owner who was out of possession or enjoyment would become entitled to claim those profits actually received by person in unlawful possession or enjoyment of such part thereof, as the case could be".
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IN CASE OF SHAMILAT PROPERTY:
In case titled: Barkat Ali Vs Sultan Mehmood, reported in 2009 CLC 899 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, it is held that, "Suit land was shamilat Deh, about which the civil Court had limited jurisdiction and could not grant permanent injunction against all the Share-holders who possessed the land in the estate as well. Unless the shamilat Deh land partitioned by metes and bounds by the Revenue Authorities, no specific share could be declared to be in possession of any land-owner".
QUESTION OF POSSESSION OF CO-SHARER IN UNDIVIDED PROPERTY:
In case titled: Syed Shabir Hussain Shah and others Vs Asghar Hussain Shah, reported in 2007 SCMR 1884 Supreme Court, it is held by the Apex Court that, "Every Co-owner/Co-sharer would be considered to be in possession of each inch of un-partitioned land according to his share".
In case titled: Munawar Hussain Vs Amanat Ali, reported in 2007 YLR 1756 Lahore, it is held that, "any transfer out of joint khata even with regard to specific khasra number is always subject to final adjustment of partition. No person can claim his exclusive ownership with regard to a specific khasra number on the ground of having been purchased by him to the exclusion of other co-sharer".
Actual possession of a joint owner in an undivided property in of no value and it would not affect the rights of other co-sharers. As it is discussed by the august Lahore High Court in case titled: Muhammad Arif Vs Muhammad Hafeez, reported in 2007 MLD 1983, that, "Actual possession of a co-owner/co-sharer in case of joint land would be of no relevance. Such possession to all purposes would inure to benefit of remaining co-owners/co-sharers as well till such time partition was affected".
Sometimes it happens that a co-sharer started raising construction over an undivided property, without consulting and associating other co-sharers or without taking their prior approval. In such an eventualities, a co-sharer who is dis-agreed with the act of another co-sharer who is raising construction can come to the Court and stop him from such an act. In a case of Ghulam Rasool Vs Umar Hayat, reported in 2004 YLR 1136 Lahore, it is held by august Lahore High Court that, "Each co-share was owner in every part of the joint holdings to the extent of his entitlement—No co-sharer could be permitted to change character of the land to the exclusion of other co-sharers, without resorting to some lawful partition proceedings".
Possession of a co-sharer on a specific part of an undivided property carries little weight when the property comes to the partition proceedings. In a case of Muhammad Younas Vs Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, reported in 2004 YLR 793 Lahore, it is held while deciding the revision petition that, "Each and every co-sharer would be deemed to be owner and also in possession of every inch of joint land till such time, same is partitioned by metes and bounds—Actual possession over joint land would matter little, when land comes to partition".
In a case titled: Mst. Ghulam Fatima Vs Muhammad Munir, reported in 2004 CLC 995 Lahore, it is held that, "Dispute among co-sharers with respect to possession of their property could be settled through partition of the same from a competent Court".
In case titled: Khurshid Anwar Jalil Vs Muhammad Hafeez Mirza, reported in 2003 CLC 1695 Lahore, it is held that, "every joint owner shall be deemed to be in possession of each and every inch of joint property—If strong co-sharer after taking possession of more valuable part of joint property either alienates same or changes its character, then it cannot be said that weak/poor co-sharer may file suit for partition and till its decision, strong co-sharer may alienate same or change its character and throw his adversary into ditches or barren land by taking commercially valuable land abutting on road side or more fertile land—Such course cannot be allowed under principle of equity and justice".
CONSTRUCTION BENEFICIAL FOR OTHER CO-SHARERS:
Plea that the construction raised by one co-sharer would be beneficial to other co-sharers, as the same will increase the value of the property is disregarded by worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Fazal Vs Ghulam Muhammad, reported in 2003 SCMR 999 Supreme Court, wherein it is held that, "Defendants instead of raising construction on the property which was admittedly owned by the plaintiffs, should have first of all got the same partitioned and then might have constructed the portion of land falling in their share".
Suit for possession of specific khasra number is not maintainable against a co-sharer unless the whole khata is not partitioned. In a case of Dilmeer Vs Rajab Ali reported in 2003 MLD 484 Lahore, it is held that, "Trial Court could to pass a decree for specific khasra number from joint khata, unless joint khata was partitioned—Suit for possession against a co-sharer was not maintainable—Every co-sharer, however, would have a right to seek partition in accordance with law".
No co-sharer can be dispossessed from an immovable property which is of an undivided nature, except in accordance with law. In a case titled: Khawaja Masood Ahmad Vs Sajad Sarwar reported in 2002 MLD 434 Lahore, it is held that, "Person acquiring possession of immovable property at the very inception as co-owner could not be dispossessed from the same without proper partition and a decree/order of a competent Court in that regard".
WHEN ENTITLEMENT OF PARTY ESTABLISHED IN PROPERTY, PARTITION CANNOT BE DENIED:
It is prime duty of the party who wants the Court to issue an order of partition in his favour in respect of some immovable property that he should have first established that he is owner in the suit property or that he has some rights attached to the immovable property, along with other essential conditions of Jurisdiction, non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties, case for full partition. No private partition and if he succeeded in proving all essential requirements of partition, then it became his right that a decree or order for partition should be passed in his favour, if any other legal question not arises in his way. In case titled: Muhammad Anwar Vs Dr. Gohar Ali, reported in 2007 CLC 621 Karachi, it is held that, "Once entitlement of the plaintiff to the suit property was established, partition and division of property could not be denied, unless, of course, it was shown that such property was incapable of division and partition.
IMPLEADMENT OF PARTY/CO-SHARER AFTER PASSING OF PRELIMINARY DECREE:
As it is the established principle of law, set down by the superior Courts of Pakistan that no one should be condemned unheard and keeping in view the said principle, the Court always try to decide the disputes between the parties on merits and after hearing them and after affording them ample opportunity to safeguard their rights. Even a co-sharer can come to the Courts of law and defend his rights after passing of preliminary decree, in which he did not joined the proceedings. In a case titled: Mst. Maqsooda Vs Muhammad Azeem, reported in 2004 YLR 1019 Lahore, it is held that "So long land in dispute remained joint and final decree was not drawn up, any necessary party being vested with title or interest therein, could be impleaded".
ALIENATION OF PROPERTY/POSSESSION OF CO-SHARER IN JOINT KHATA:
In case titled: Muhammad Bashir Vs Noor Rehman, reported in 2011 MLD 1518 Lahore, the august Court held that, "Co-sharer in possession of specific property not beyond his share could protect his possession till taking place of partition in accordance with law".
In another case titled: Abdur Rehman VS Muhammad Siddique through L.Rs, reported in 2006 MLD 442 Lahore, it is held that, "Co-sharer in possession could, while alienating his share, transfer possession of his holding to another person which would be subject to partition. Co-sharer would be entitled to retain possession of land in joint khata till it was partitioned by metes and bounds".
A Co-sharer can alienate his share in an undivided property and there is no embargo upon him for doing so. In case titled: Mst. Bibi Jan VS Mir Zaman, reported in 2003 CLC 909 Peshawar, it is held that, "Co-owners in possession of specific area can alienate same subject to final adjustment at time of actual partition".
If a co-sharer sells in portion of property in an undivided khata, and deliver the possession of some specific area to the vendee, then the vendee can retain the possession of such land which was delivering to him by the vendor till final partition. In case titled Muhammad Aslam Vs Amir Muhammad Khan, reported in 2003 YLR 1870 Lahore, it is held that, "Co-sharer was entitled to transfer a specific khasra number under his exclusive possession to the vendee and the he (vendee) would continue in possession til the partition of the joint khata because the vendee stepped into the shoes of the vendor as co-sharer".
A Co-sharer can alienate a property in favour of other person but he cannot alienate a property with a specific description of boundaries unless the property is being properly partitioned. In a case titled: Muhammad Anwar Vs Mst. Nawab Bibi, reported in 2003 MLD 742 Lahore, it is held that, "Vendors although co-sharers, yet were not in possession of specific khasra numbers and, therefore, they were not entitled to transfer and lawfully alienate the plot with boundaries in favour of vendee".
CONCEPT OF OWELTY OF PARTITION:
Owelty is an equalization charge. It is the amount that one co-owner must pay to another after a suit of partition, so that each co-owner receives equal value from the property. This is done to achieve equality after exchange of parcels of land having different values or after an unequal partition of real property, or Owelty of partition is a sum of money paid by one of two caparceners or co-tenants to the other, when a partition has been effected between them, but the land not being susceptible of division into exactly equal shares, such payment is required to make the portions respectively assigned to them of equal value.
In case titled: Mrs. Saadia Muzaffar through her attorney Vs Mrs. Khadija Manzur, reported in 2006 CLC 401 Karachi, it is held that, "Co-owners would have equal right in every part of property until a regular partition was affected. Merely because defendant was in occupation of front portion of property purporting to be of higher value would not give him right to more benefit than what was possessed by plaintiff. Concept of owelty was not applicable to such case".
CONCLUSION
From above details we can assess that in civil suits the claims of partition of property is highly technical and complicated job. In order to accommodate the people it is need of hour that the Govt. should take serious steps for computerizing the revenue record or other property record. Further settlements in all districts of Pakistan are to be made regularly and at the time of settlement, if the revenue officers found any joint property as impliedly divided by co-sharers through an implied/silent private partition, to give it effect in the record without constraining them to have a recourse of litigation. Secondly it is also inevitable that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan like laid downing the procedure in rent cases, as evident from Barkat Ali case 2000 SCMR 556, also considered the question of partitions for facilitating the people of Pakistan.
By
ABDUL ZAKIR TAREEN
Advocate, High Court, Peshawar.
In Courts of Pakistan huge number of partition suits are pending adjudication. As there is no proper mechanism with revenue hierarchy/revenue department or other law enforcing institutions to make partitions of properties without constraining the owners to approach the Courts of law. The difference of opinion and ill-unionship is a natural thing in a society and normally the people cannot survive in joint venture and to live an independent life or to utilize the property in his own manner, they are constrained to get divide their properties but through the course of law.
In partition suits there is no loser and both the parties are to be called winner but if the possession of the property is in the hands of tress-passer, then he can be loser of partition suit.
Partition is recognized by the legal maxim "Nemo in Communione potest invitus detineri", no one can be kept in co-proprietorship against his will. Partition is merely an arrangement whereby co-sharers having undivided interest in joint properties take by arrangements specific properties in lieu of their shares.
For partition suits the property can be divided in three types:
(i) Pure Agricultural Properties,
(ii) Agricultural and Constructed mixed properties, and
(iii) Pure Constructed Properties (in the shape of houses, shops, markets and etc).
Undoubtedly relief for partition in respect of agricultural properties can be sought from Revenue Officer under Chapter XI Section 135 and other relevant sections of this chapter.
Similarly if the property subject of partition is partly agricultural and partly constructed, then as per law laid down by the Superior Courts, it will be analyzed that whether which type of property has a major portion, if agricultural then Revenue Courts will be approached, otherwise relief for partition will be obtained from Ordinary Civil Courts of Law.
So far as pure constructed properties are concerned, they can be got divided from ordinary civil Courts through a suit for partition under the Partition Act, 1893.
PRE-CAUTIONS IN PARTITION SUITS:
(i) (JURISDICTION):
Case must be filed in the appropriate Court of jurisdiction. While assessing the question of jurisdiction, first of all territorial jurisdiction should be ascertained and the suit for partition in respect of immovable property must be filed having regard to Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, and ordinarily it is to be filed in that Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the immovable property is situated.
Secondly, subject matter jurisdiction must be assessed as highlighted above, suits in respect of pure agricultural property or major portion of agricultural property is to be filed in Revenue Courts, and regarding constructed property or major portion of constructed property is to be filed in Civil Courts. In case titled: Qamar Sultan Vs Mst. Bibi Sufaidan, reported in 2012 SCMR 695, it was held that, "Jurisdiction in respect of partition of agricultural property and to grant relief would lay with the revenue Court".
While dealing with the matter of jurisdiction the Court should have to take great care for deciding that whether the suit property is an agricultural one or constructed/commercial. In case titled: Sher Ahmad Khan Vs Sardar Khan, reported in 2008 PLD 97 Peshawar, it was held that, "if the land was agricultural, then the partition of the same was exclusively amenable to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of S. 172, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 was barred which proposition, however, was subject to one exception that if the agricultural land would lose its character and would become building site or commercial area, then the civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit with respect to its partition. Whether the land or its major portion was covered by abadi or the same was exclusively agricultural land, was a spot related question, which could be determined by the Trial Court after the appointment of a local commission who, after visiting the spot, would be in a position to determine the nature of the property".
In case titled: Jamal ud Din Vs Haji Gul Khan, reported in 2012 CLC 1353 Quetta, the august superior Courts provided a procedure for preferring the matter of partition to a Revenue Court and held that, "Party interested in partition of his share in suit property, had to make an application for partition of the land to a Revenue Officer as per provision of S. 135 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967".
The Revenue Officer while dealing with the partition of the property could decide only question of title in property to be partitioned while acting as a civil Court of competent jurisdiction, but could not decide all other questions falling within jurisdiction of Civil Court. In case titled: Mst. Farzana Vs Mst. Sehti, reported in 2012 PLD 241 Karachi, it was held that, "Revenue Officer while deciding questions as to property to be partitioned or mode of its partition would act only as Revenue Officer, but not as a revenue Court or civil Court".
Revenue Officer can decide matter of title in the immovable property and if he thinks fit, then he can sent the same matter to the Civil Court for deciding matter of title to the immovable property. In case titled: Muhammad Yousaf Khan Vs Board of Revenue, reported in 2002 CLC 739 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, it is held that, "Where question of title would arise in property to be partitioned, Revenue Officer could himself determine question of title or refer matter to Civil Court for its determination".
(ii) (PARTIES).
All Co-sharers in the joint properties are to be arrayed as a party to the partition case and no name should be left from impleadment, in order to save the suit from the plea of non-joinder.
In case titled: Syed Ain Ullah vs Dilber and others, reported in 2013 MLD 708 Baluchistan, it was held that, "dismissal of suit on the basis of non-joinder of a necessary party was an erroneous decision as under Order I Rule 9, CPC, no suit shall be defeated by the reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the trial Court was empowered to implead a person to the proceedings who it deemed to be necessary for determination of matter in issue".
In case titled: Muhammad Younas Sheikh Vs Corex enterprises and another, reported in 2007 MLD 508 Karachi, it was held that, "Suit would not be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the Court could deal with the matter in controversy so far as regarded the rights and interests of the parties actually before it".
Similar guideline is also provided in the below mentioned rulings of superior Courts that mis-joinder or non-joinder is not fatal to the suit, those judgments are as under:
a. 2011 YLR 1999 Quetta, b. 2011 SCMR 1460,
c. 2010 MLD 1596 Quetta, d. 2007 SCMR 729 Citation (n).
Keeping in mind the afore-referred verdicts of the august superior Courts, though mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties is not fatal to the civil litigation and the trial Court is supposed to determine the issue even in those suits in which this defect is present. But at the same time the law advises that all parties having an interest in the subject matter of the suit should be arrayed as a party either in the panel of plaintiffs or defendants. So great care should be made that in suit for possession through partition all the co-sharers/Khata shareek are joined as a party.
(iii) (FULL PARTITION SUIT IS TO BE BROUGHT AND NOT FOR PARTIAL PARTITION).
All properties which are in joint venture of the parties are to be included in the partition suit, in order to save the suit from the question of Partial Partition.
In case titled: Noor Muhammad and others Vs Allah Ditta and others, reported in PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198 citation (C), the august Apex Court held that, "Co-owner in a joint property was not entitled without assent or acquisance of the other co-sharers, to exclude portion of joint property or to select a particular portion for the purpose of partition. Co-sharer was required to seek the partition of the landed property as a whole".
In case titled: Ghulam Rasool and another Vs Muhammad Khalid and others, reported in 2006 YLR 2289 Lahore, the august Court held that, "party opting to come for partition was not permitted to pick and choose and to have share in valuable parts of the joint holdings by leaving out its parties with lesser value, suit found to be for partial partition was not maintainable".
In case titled: Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas Vs Barkat Ali and another, reported in 1999 YLR 2190 Lahore citation (b), the Hon'ble Court held that, "partition of holding could not be affected without including the entire land of property, partial partition was bad in law".
(iv) (NO PRIOR PARTITION OR PRIVATE SETTLEMENT/KHANGI TAQSEEM).
The suit must be in respect of those joint properties in respect of which neither any regular partition was made priorly nor the properties should have been divided through private settlement/Khangi Taqseem.
To prove private partition, party should have to produce/exhibit order of partition or copy of Roznamcha Waqiati showing delivery of possession or Tatimma made in favour of co-sharer/party.
The fact of Private partition is always considered in the course of litigation, as such sanctity is available to the same. In a case titled: Irshad alieas Abdul Rahim Vs Ashiq Hussain, reported in 2007 PLD 421 Karachi, the Hon'ble Court held that, "Private arrangement and partition deserves the same sanctity which a lawful contract deserves and should not be interfered within any legal proceedings unless the private arrangement or partition is otherwise not legally permissible".
If a dispute between the co-sharers arises in a situation when private partition has been arrived between them, but they have no formal partition deed in their hands or it has been lost, then in such like circumstances, the possession of respective party would be of great importance in determining the real issue of private partition. In case titled: Naveed Ahmad Vs Iqbal Begum, reported in 2006 YLR 2341 Lahore, it is held that, "Private Partition between the parties--
—Absence of formal partition deed—Question of possession would assume critical significance".
Private partition should be proved independently.
(v) (CO-SHARERSHIP).
It is to be established that the claimant is co-sharer in the property subject of partition.
In case titled: Gulzar Begum Vs Mehboob Hussain alias Mehboob Khan, reported in 2012 YLR 809 High Court AJK, the Hon'ble Court held that, "Possession on the said land could not be distributed till partition of the same in accordance with law was not made".
In another case titled: Muhammad Ismail Vs Ghulam Sarwar, reported in 2008 YLR 420 Lahore, the remedy was given to a co-sharer who desired to get possession of his share in an undivided property and it is held that, ''only manner in which the plaintiffs could get possession was by filing a suit for partition and separate possession".
Sometimes a question arises that whether a co-sharer can sell his share in the joint khata or not. This question is resolved by the august Lahore High Court in case titled: Abdul Ghaffar Vs Waqas Hafeez, reported in 2010 CLC 285 Lahore, it was held by the august Court that, "Co-sharer in possession in a khata has a right to alienate a specific piece of land in his possession and the transferee acquires the same rights as the transferor".
It is the basic right of each and every co-sharer that he can claim partition of the joint property at any time and there is no limitation against such claim. This preposition has been set by worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Rafiq, reported in 2004 SCMR 1036 Supreme Court, wherein it is held that, "Partition could be claimed by any of the joint owners during currency of joint ownership without limitation of any period in that behalf, so long as his right was not denied".
In case titled: Ashiq Hussain Vs Prof. Muhammad Aslam, reported in 2004 MLD 1844 Lahore, it is held that, "suit for permanent injunction against the other co-sharers was not maintainable except by bringing a suit for partition of joint property".
TRIAL OF PARTITION BY CIVIL COURT:
In partition suits ordinarily the civil Courts bifurcate the claim into two rounds/stages:
(a) First round/stage is finalized on preliminary decree of the partition suits or if some flaws highlighted here-in-above are involved, then it is dismissed.
In the preliminary round of litigation of partition suits, the trial Court mainly checked the question of jurisdiction, the entitlement/co-sharership of the parties, and other merits of the case and if the case is made out by the claimant, then in this round of litigation the Court determines the shares of the parties in joint property.
(b) Second round/stage is called final decree proceedings. In this round application for the grant of final decree is filed by the decree holder, on the basis of which issues notice to the respondents, and if they contest the same, they file reply. The Court after hearing the parties appoints a local commission under Section 75 read with order 26 of CPC for determination of mode of partition. The commission as per directions of the Court visits the property subject of partition and examines it, whether it is partitionable or not. If it is not partitionable then the local commissioner evaluate the market value of the decretal property and thereafter he submits his report. The Court passes order of sale of decretal property and then passes order of division of proceeds of sale between the parties in accordance with their determine shares.
The report of local commissioner in determining the actual position of the property sought to be partitioned is of much importance, as the same can help the Court for determining the fact that whether the property is partitionable or not and if partitionable then what should be the criteria for its partition.
If the property is partitionable then the local commission in the presence of the parties and record keeper of the property, if any, suggests the mode of partition. He prepares a sketch/map of the spot. Legally speaking the local commission keeping in mind the possession of each party, their shares, the valuable and priceless portions of the property, the construction if any, suggests the mode of partition keeping in mind this notion that every co-sharer must received the constructed portion, valuable and priceless portion as that all them are equally accommodated. Thereafter, the local commission submits its report, the Court invites the objections if any, of the parties, examine the local commission, if necessary and either confirmed or set aside the commission report. If it is set aside, then the Court appoints another commission with the same directions and work, otherwise in case of confirmation of the commission report, the Court passes final decree.
Thereafter, the decree holder brings an execution application for getting possession on the spot in accordance with the final decree.
It also pertinent to mention that the outcome of first round of partition suit i.e. preliminary decree is always subject to appeal, then revision or second appeal, and finally it is also challengeable before the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction envisaged under Article 185 of the Constitution. Similarly the final decree if the parties so desires, can be challenged through the same process, appeal, revision/second appeal and appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution, and the last stage is the execution as mentioned above.
TO GET REMEDY IN CASES OF PARTITION IS TIME CONSUMING PROCESS:
A huge number of suits for partition are pending before different Civil Courts of Pakistan and a great number of civil appeals, civil revision and CPLA are pending before District Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court of Pakistan. As observed above, that as there is no direct/automatic mechanism for partition/division of immovable properties except the litigation, a large number of people are making visits of different Courts for getting relief. It is also observed that even a suit for partition take great time in civil Court, if we roughly calculate it takes:
(i) Six years in civil/Trial Court;
(ii) Two years in Appellate/District Court;
(iii) Six years in Revisional/High Court; and
(iv) Six years in Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Meaning thereby a partition suit takes minimum Twenty years. It must be kept in mind that in partition suits there is no concept of looser, both the parties if found co-owners, get relief and except the tress-passer both the parties are accommodated by the Court. But what happened practically, a partition suit is brought and the same is decided but at the end of the day it is defeated due to the below mentioned flaws:
i. (Jurisdiction).
ii. (Non-joinder).
iii. (Partial partition).
iv. (Prior partition or private settlement/Khangi Taqseem).
v. (No Co-sharership).
It is need of hour that the august Supreme Court of Pakistan like guidelines provided for rent cases, in case titled: Barkat Ali Vs Muhammad Ihsan, etc, reported in 2000 SCMR 556, also provides guidelines for partition suits and to declare it necessary that some proforma's prepared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan are to be made available with the partition suit at the time of its institution and these proforma must be filled by the counsel of the plaintiffs, signed by him and also by the plaintiffs. These proforma must relate to the issues mentioned below:
(i) The Court has got the jurisdiction,
(ii) All the co-sharers and necessary parties are impleaded,
(iii) The suit is regarding whole property and not for a particular portion,
(iv) There is no prior regular or private partition and
(v) The plaintiffs are co-sharers in the property subject of partition and there due share, if determined and known should be highlighted.
This effort will surely minimize the agonies of poor litigants who are visiting Courts for their suits regarding partition.
If both the parties claiming possession over the suit property, then such phenomena deals with the factual controversy and the same could only be resolved after calling of evidence from both sides. In case titled: Abdul Qadir Vs Sher Muhammad, reported in 2010 MLD 1596 Quetta, it was held that, "Section 54 and O.XX, R. 18, C.P.C. were to be observed while deciding the issues of partition".
PROCEDURE IN RESPECT OF PARTITION OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES IN REVENUE COURTS:
As explained in case of Noor Muhammad and others Vs Allah Ditta and others, reported in PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198 by the august Supreme Court that proceedings of partition of agricultural land before the Revenue Officers were not governed by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, particularly when the question of title was not involved, such proceedings being summary in nature do not partake the character of a civil suit necessitating the framing of issues or recording of evidence of the parties.
According to Section 142 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 the Revenue Officer was to decide the question by holding an inquiry as he deemed necessary.
Application for partition of agricultural property is to be filed under Section 135 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 by impleading all co-sharers as a party by joining complete property which is in joint venture of the parties. The Revenue Court after noticing the respondents and after getting replies, if any, from them will summons the patwari halqa and will direct him to prepare Naqsha "Alif', "Bay" and "Jeem".
(i) Naqsha Alif will show Shares/Hissas of parties in the property in question.
(ii) Naqsha Bay will show proposed Khasrawise shares of parties and basically in this document the mode of partition is determined and proposed Tatimaas are curved out. Basically this document denotes the division of shares and in Urdu it is known as (نقشہ ب،بٹوار).
(iii) Naqsha Jeem will show the proposal regarding the partition mutation and in urdu it is known as (نقشہ ج جدائی).
At the end the revenue officer will examine the record and will hear the arguments, if any, of the counsels of the parties and if there is no question of earlier private/regular partition or non-joinder or partial partition or jurisdiction or title dispute will allow the application and passed the order and issue "Sanad-Sultani" in favour of the applicants as per the above referred Naqshajaat. Thereafter, for practical possession, the applicant may apply to an through an execution application and finally possession is handed over to him on the spot.
Similarly as per decision, the revenue officer will enter and attest partition mutation and will curved-out the "Tattimaas" by dividing the available Khasra numbers in Bye-numbers.
In case titled: Khawaja Muhammad Arif Vs Mrs. Tahira Asif, reported in 2005 PLD 972 Supreme Court, it is held by the worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan that, "Decree of partition is an "instrument of Partition" and as such has to be engrossed on stamp paper and in case it is not done the decree can neither be executed nor could be acted upon". "Real test of "instrument of partition" is whether there was any property of which the parties were co-owners and the property was being divided by the deed in scverality, entitling the parties to the separate enjoyment of that property".
LEGAL AFFECT OF PRIVATE PARTITION OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY:
Private partition of agricultural properties between the co-sharers will have no legal affect until the same is affirmed by the Revenue Officer U/S 147 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, which provides that "In any case in which a partition has been made without the intervention of a Revenue Officer, any party thereto may apply to a Revenue Officer for an order affirming the partition. On receiving the application, the Revenue Officer shall enquire into the case, and if he finds that the partition has in fact been made, he may make an order affirming it and proceed under Sections 143, 144, 145 and 146, or any of those sections, as circumstances may require, in the same manner as if the partition had been made on at application to himself under this chapter.
In case titled: Noor Muhammad and others Vs Allah Ditta and others, reported in PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198 citation (C), the august Apex Court held that, "Private partition does not determine the legal rights but simply indicates the mode of division of property among them".
In case titled: Syed Musarrat Shah Vs Syed Ahmed Shah alias Lal Bacha reported in 2012 PLD 151 Peshawar, the august Court held that, "Mere entry of partition mutation, could not be declared to be sufficient enough to have the protection of law". If other steps have not been taken in respect of the affirmation of the private partition, i.e. inquiry about private partition, passing of order of affirmation of private partition, administration of property excluded from partition, distribution of revenue and rent amongst the co-owners after partition, instrument of partition and delivery of possession to all the concerned co-sharers according to the partition so reached between the parties.
OTHER ISSUES REGARDING PARTITION
UN-DIVISIBLE NATURE OF PROPERTY:
One another problem which is now a day very common and which the masses faces in the urban area is that sometimes the property is of un-divisible nature, so in such a situation if any one of the co-sharers files a suit for partition of the such property, then the Court should have to take great care in such like cases and should take assistance from law by applying S.2 of Partition Act, 1893. In case titled: Iqbal Ahmad Vs Mst. Aziz Bano, reported in 2010 MLD 784 Karachi, it is held that, "Provisions of S.2 of Partition Act, 1893, made it generally permissible that in a suit of such nature, a property if found incapable of being partitioned by metes and bounds, the same might be sold out and proceeds thereof might be distributed among the share-holders/co-owners to resolve the controversy between them in respect thereof as once for all".
RIGHT OF CO-SHARER TO BUY WHOLE UNDIVIDED PROPERTY WHICH IS OF INDIVISIBLE NATURE:
Once a preliminary decree is passed by a Court of law then the Court has left with no other option by to proceed under S. 3 of the Partition Act, 1893. This fact has further been confirmed by the verdict of the Lahore High Court, in case tilled: Firdous Begum Vs Mst. Salamat Bibi reported in 2008 CLC 248 Lahore, in which it is held that, "Once preliminary decree was passed, then provisions of S. 2 of Partition Act, 1893 would not apply and Court would have to pass final decree and resort to provision of S. 3 thereof and in case of failure of any share-holder to apply for leave to buy share, then property would be liable to be auctioned. Once property was found to be indivisible, then Court for effecting partition would have to follow procedure laid down in Partition Act, 1893 after providing opportunity to shareholders to apply for leave to buy property".
REMEDIES WITH THE PERSON/CO-SHARER WHO IS DISPOSSESSED:
In case titled: Contractor Haji Muhammad Alam Vs Shaukat Sultan, reported in 2009 SCMR 688, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "where a co-sharer in possession is dispossessed by another co-sharer, then he has two remedies to avail, he can either file suit for partition or a suit under S.9, Specific Relief Act, 1877".
In another case titled: Shoukat Sultan Vs Haji Muhammad Alam, reported in 2008 YLR 1698 Lahore, it is held the by the august High Court that, "where co-sharer in possession was dispossessed by another co-sharer, then he had two options, namely he could either wait and file suit for partition or he could file a suit under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877".
In another case titled: Niaz War Jan Vs Gul Nawaz, reported in 2007 YLR 1723 Peshawar, it is held by the august High Court that, "A co-sharer in possession of a joint property was not liable to be ousted therefrom, except on a partition by metes and bounds taking place between the co-sharers".
In case titled: Muhammad Riaz Vs Mumtaz Ali through Legal Heirs, reported in 2006 YLR 1071, it is held that, "where both the parties were co-sharers in the joint un-partition Khata and their remedy was to seek partition in accordance with law by impleading all other co-sharers in khata—If a co-sharer was dispossessed by another co-sharer his remedy was for partition of joint property or a suit under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, for possession but a regular suit under section 8 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, was not maintainable—Suit filed by the petitioner could not be treated to be one under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, as there was no specific averment that they were illegally or forcibly dispossessed from the land in dispute".
Remedies provided to the co-sharer who has been dispossessed has also been given by august Lahore High Court in case titled: Nazar Hussain Vs Additional District Judge, Chakwal reported in 2004 YLR 322, wherein it is held that, "Co-sharer in possession, if dispossessed had two remedies; one a suit for separate possession by partition; and the second a suit in accordance with terms of S. 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877".
MESNE PROFIT:
Any person in possession of the property enjoying benefit therefrom to the exclusion of rightful owner, he would be liable to pay rent or mesne profit to the person who has been dispossessed or deprived of his property. In a case titled: Muhammad Anwar Vs Dr. Gohar Ali, reported in 2007 CLC 621 Karachi, it is held that, "Co-owner in possession to the exclusion of other co-owner in such case, could be held liable to the extent of his unauthorized or hostile occupation, possession or enjoyment thereof. Once a person established and Court came to a conclusion that person was entitled to any right or share in the property; and he was being deprived of use of such right or share in property by the other person, then the owner who was out of possession or enjoyment would become entitled to claim those profits actually received by person in unlawful possession or enjoyment of such part thereof, as the case could be".
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IN CASE OF SHAMILAT PROPERTY:
In case titled: Barkat Ali Vs Sultan Mehmood, reported in 2009 CLC 899 Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, it is held that, "Suit land was shamilat Deh, about which the civil Court had limited jurisdiction and could not grant permanent injunction against all the Share-holders who possessed the land in the estate as well. Unless the shamilat Deh land partitioned by metes and bounds by the Revenue Authorities, no specific share could be declared to be in possession of any land-owner".
QUESTION OF POSSESSION OF CO-SHARER IN UNDIVIDED PROPERTY:
In case titled: Syed Shabir Hussain Shah and others Vs Asghar Hussain Shah, reported in 2007 SCMR 1884 Supreme Court, it is held by the Apex Court that, "Every Co-owner/Co-sharer would be considered to be in possession of each inch of un-partitioned land according to his share".
In case titled: Munawar Hussain Vs Amanat Ali, reported in 2007 YLR 1756 Lahore, it is held that, "any transfer out of joint khata even with regard to specific khasra number is always subject to final adjustment of partition. No person can claim his exclusive ownership with regard to a specific khasra number on the ground of having been purchased by him to the exclusion of other co-sharer".
Actual possession of a joint owner in an undivided property in of no value and it would not affect the rights of other co-sharers. As it is discussed by the august Lahore High Court in case titled: Muhammad Arif Vs Muhammad Hafeez, reported in 2007 MLD 1983, that, "Actual possession of a co-owner/co-sharer in case of joint land would be of no relevance. Such possession to all purposes would inure to benefit of remaining co-owners/co-sharers as well till such time partition was affected".
Sometimes it happens that a co-sharer started raising construction over an undivided property, without consulting and associating other co-sharers or without taking their prior approval. In such an eventualities, a co-sharer who is dis-agreed with the act of another co-sharer who is raising construction can come to the Court and stop him from such an act. In a case of Ghulam Rasool Vs Umar Hayat, reported in 2004 YLR 1136 Lahore, it is held by august Lahore High Court that, "Each co-share was owner in every part of the joint holdings to the extent of his entitlement—No co-sharer could be permitted to change character of the land to the exclusion of other co-sharers, without resorting to some lawful partition proceedings".
Possession of a co-sharer on a specific part of an undivided property carries little weight when the property comes to the partition proceedings. In a case of Muhammad Younas Vs Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, reported in 2004 YLR 793 Lahore, it is held while deciding the revision petition that, "Each and every co-sharer would be deemed to be owner and also in possession of every inch of joint land till such time, same is partitioned by metes and bounds—Actual possession over joint land would matter little, when land comes to partition".
In a case titled: Mst. Ghulam Fatima Vs Muhammad Munir, reported in 2004 CLC 995 Lahore, it is held that, "Dispute among co-sharers with respect to possession of their property could be settled through partition of the same from a competent Court".
In case titled: Khurshid Anwar Jalil Vs Muhammad Hafeez Mirza, reported in 2003 CLC 1695 Lahore, it is held that, "every joint owner shall be deemed to be in possession of each and every inch of joint property—If strong co-sharer after taking possession of more valuable part of joint property either alienates same or changes its character, then it cannot be said that weak/poor co-sharer may file suit for partition and till its decision, strong co-sharer may alienate same or change its character and throw his adversary into ditches or barren land by taking commercially valuable land abutting on road side or more fertile land—Such course cannot be allowed under principle of equity and justice".
CONSTRUCTION BENEFICIAL FOR OTHER CO-SHARERS:
Plea that the construction raised by one co-sharer would be beneficial to other co-sharers, as the same will increase the value of the property is disregarded by worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Fazal Vs Ghulam Muhammad, reported in 2003 SCMR 999 Supreme Court, wherein it is held that, "Defendants instead of raising construction on the property which was admittedly owned by the plaintiffs, should have first of all got the same partitioned and then might have constructed the portion of land falling in their share".
Suit for possession of specific khasra number is not maintainable against a co-sharer unless the whole khata is not partitioned. In a case of Dilmeer Vs Rajab Ali reported in 2003 MLD 484 Lahore, it is held that, "Trial Court could to pass a decree for specific khasra number from joint khata, unless joint khata was partitioned—Suit for possession against a co-sharer was not maintainable—Every co-sharer, however, would have a right to seek partition in accordance with law".
No co-sharer can be dispossessed from an immovable property which is of an undivided nature, except in accordance with law. In a case titled: Khawaja Masood Ahmad Vs Sajad Sarwar reported in 2002 MLD 434 Lahore, it is held that, "Person acquiring possession of immovable property at the very inception as co-owner could not be dispossessed from the same without proper partition and a decree/order of a competent Court in that regard".
WHEN ENTITLEMENT OF PARTY ESTABLISHED IN PROPERTY, PARTITION CANNOT BE DENIED:
It is prime duty of the party who wants the Court to issue an order of partition in his favour in respect of some immovable property that he should have first established that he is owner in the suit property or that he has some rights attached to the immovable property, along with other essential conditions of Jurisdiction, non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties, case for full partition. No private partition and if he succeeded in proving all essential requirements of partition, then it became his right that a decree or order for partition should be passed in his favour, if any other legal question not arises in his way. In case titled: Muhammad Anwar Vs Dr. Gohar Ali, reported in 2007 CLC 621 Karachi, it is held that, "Once entitlement of the plaintiff to the suit property was established, partition and division of property could not be denied, unless, of course, it was shown that such property was incapable of division and partition.
IMPLEADMENT OF PARTY/CO-SHARER AFTER PASSING OF PRELIMINARY DECREE:
As it is the established principle of law, set down by the superior Courts of Pakistan that no one should be condemned unheard and keeping in view the said principle, the Court always try to decide the disputes between the parties on merits and after hearing them and after affording them ample opportunity to safeguard their rights. Even a co-sharer can come to the Courts of law and defend his rights after passing of preliminary decree, in which he did not joined the proceedings. In a case titled: Mst. Maqsooda Vs Muhammad Azeem, reported in 2004 YLR 1019 Lahore, it is held that "So long land in dispute remained joint and final decree was not drawn up, any necessary party being vested with title or interest therein, could be impleaded".
ALIENATION OF PROPERTY/POSSESSION OF CO-SHARER IN JOINT KHATA:
In case titled: Muhammad Bashir Vs Noor Rehman, reported in 2011 MLD 1518 Lahore, the august Court held that, "Co-sharer in possession of specific property not beyond his share could protect his possession till taking place of partition in accordance with law".
In another case titled: Abdur Rehman VS Muhammad Siddique through L.Rs, reported in 2006 MLD 442 Lahore, it is held that, "Co-sharer in possession could, while alienating his share, transfer possession of his holding to another person which would be subject to partition. Co-sharer would be entitled to retain possession of land in joint khata till it was partitioned by metes and bounds".
A Co-sharer can alienate his share in an undivided property and there is no embargo upon him for doing so. In case titled: Mst. Bibi Jan VS Mir Zaman, reported in 2003 CLC 909 Peshawar, it is held that, "Co-owners in possession of specific area can alienate same subject to final adjustment at time of actual partition".
If a co-sharer sells in portion of property in an undivided khata, and deliver the possession of some specific area to the vendee, then the vendee can retain the possession of such land which was delivering to him by the vendor till final partition. In case titled Muhammad Aslam Vs Amir Muhammad Khan, reported in 2003 YLR 1870 Lahore, it is held that, "Co-sharer was entitled to transfer a specific khasra number under his exclusive possession to the vendee and the he (vendee) would continue in possession til the partition of the joint khata because the vendee stepped into the shoes of the vendor as co-sharer".
A Co-sharer can alienate a property in favour of other person but he cannot alienate a property with a specific description of boundaries unless the property is being properly partitioned. In a case titled: Muhammad Anwar Vs Mst. Nawab Bibi, reported in 2003 MLD 742 Lahore, it is held that, "Vendors although co-sharers, yet were not in possession of specific khasra numbers and, therefore, they were not entitled to transfer and lawfully alienate the plot with boundaries in favour of vendee".
CONCEPT OF OWELTY OF PARTITION:
Owelty is an equalization charge. It is the amount that one co-owner must pay to another after a suit of partition, so that each co-owner receives equal value from the property. This is done to achieve equality after exchange of parcels of land having different values or after an unequal partition of real property, or Owelty of partition is a sum of money paid by one of two caparceners or co-tenants to the other, when a partition has been effected between them, but the land not being susceptible of division into exactly equal shares, such payment is required to make the portions respectively assigned to them of equal value.
In case titled: Mrs. Saadia Muzaffar through her attorney Vs Mrs. Khadija Manzur, reported in 2006 CLC 401 Karachi, it is held that, "Co-owners would have equal right in every part of property until a regular partition was affected. Merely because defendant was in occupation of front portion of property purporting to be of higher value would not give him right to more benefit than what was possessed by plaintiff. Concept of owelty was not applicable to such case".
CONCLUSION
From above details we can assess that in civil suits the claims of partition of property is highly technical and complicated job. In order to accommodate the people it is need of hour that the Govt. should take serious steps for computerizing the revenue record or other property record. Further settlements in all districts of Pakistan are to be made regularly and at the time of settlement, if the revenue officers found any joint property as impliedly divided by co-sharers through an implied/silent private partition, to give it effect in the record without constraining them to have a recourse of litigation. Secondly it is also inevitable that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan like laid downing the procedure in rent cases, as evident from Barkat Ali case 2000 SCMR 556, also considered the question of partitions for facilitating the people of Pakistan.
Mix Case Laws
INTERIM RELIEF
2006 YLR 1574
2005 YLR 787
2006 PCRLJ 494
2006 PCRLJ 18
2005 MLD 535
2005 MLD 576
Bail in Juvenil Justice
2005 YLR 3196
2006 PCRLJ 542
2002 PCRLJ 657
2002 MLD 1817
2003 YLR 1792
2002 YLR 1045
2005 MLD 1247
2006 MLD 507
2004 MLD 1747
2005 MLD 1468
2005 YLR 838
2002 YLR 176
PLD 2004 PESHAWER 70
2005 PCRLJ 1500
2003 YLR 3204
2004 MLD 630
2006 PCRLJ 1788
2004 PCRLJ 426
22-A
2006 CLC 119
2005 YLR 1408
2005 YLR 3127
2006 MLD 1184
2005 PCRLJ 684
2005 PSC 34
PLD 2005 KAR 285
2006 YLR 1904
CANCELLATION OF BAIL
2006 YLR 1433
2006 YLR 1678
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCRLJ 1087
2006 PCRLJ 18
2006 PCRLJ 1070
2006 PCRLJ 292
2006 PCRLJ 1144
2006 PCRLJ 1009
2006 PCRLJ 249
2006 PCRLJ 986
2006 PCRLJ 405,423,986
PLJ 2006 CRC (LAH)955
PLJ 2006 SC 247
PLJ 2006 CRC (LAH)469,176,883
PLJ 2005 CRC (LAH) 65,268,120
2006 SCMR 93
SECTION 154 CRPC
PLJ 2006 CR.C (LAH) 190(DB)
2005 YLR 1329
2006 PCRLJ 1277
2004 PCRLJ 391
2004 PCRLJ 976
2004 SCMR 868
2005 SCMR 154
PLJ 2005 SC 24
PLJ 2006 LAH 507
INTERIM RELIEF
2006 YLR 1574
2005 YLR 787
2006 PCRLJ 494
2006 PCRLJ 18
2005 MLD 535
2005 MLD 576
249-A power of magistrate to aqcuite accused at any stage of proccedings
PLJ 2004 SC 2
PLD 1981 SC 607
NLR 1999 PCRLJ 137
2003 YLR 274
2005 PCRLJ 252
PLD 1984 SC 428
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2000 MLD 605
1991 PCRLJ 1381
1985 SCMR 257
PLD 1991 LAH 268
1999 MLD 1645
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2003 PCRLJ 12
PLJ 2003 AJ&K
2004 PCRLJ 1068
Locus Poenitentie U/S 121 of General Clause Act
PLD 1997 KARACHI 450
1998 SCMR 2745
2002 CLC 1464
2004 YLR 2047
2003 CLC 1196
2000 CLC 443
PLD 1964 SCMR 407
1001 SCMR 15
PLD 1985 AJK 17
PLD 1975 KARACHI 373
1994 MLD 751
249-A power of magistrate to aqcuite accused at any stage of proccedings
PLJ 2004 SC 2
PLD 1981 SC 607
NLR 1999 PCRLJ 137
2003 YLR 274
2005 PCRLJ 252
PLD 1984 SC 428
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2000 MLD 605
1991 PCRLJ 1381
1985 SCMR 257
PLD 1991 LAH 268
1999 MLD 1645
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2003 PCRLJ 12
PLJ 2003 AJ&K
2004 PCRLJ 1068
Locus Poenitentie U/S 121 of General Clause Act
PLD 1997 KARACHI 450
1998 SCMR 2745
2002 CLC 1464
2004 YLR 2047
2003 CLC 1196
2000 CLC 443
PLD 1964 SCMR 407
1001 SCMR 15
PLD 1985 AJK 17
PLD 1975 KARACHI 373
1994 MLD 751
Pre- Emption
1988 SCMR 892
1996 CLC 161
2001 SCMR 495
1991 MLD 506
2008 PLD MARCH/APRIL
Mian peer v/s Fakir mohammad
PLD 2007 SC 121
1991 SCMR 112
Accused not named in F.I.R
2006 YLR 1664
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCRLJ 423
2006 PCRLJ 1070
2006 PCRLJ 986
2006 PCRLJ 612
2006 PCRLJ 418
2006 YLR 418
2006 YLR 1404
2006 YLR 1872
Check dishounor / 489-F
PLJ 2004 545
PLD 99 KARACHI 121
PCRLJ 2004 343
PLD 95 SC 34
2004 PLJ LAHORE 522
Plea of Alibi
2005 MLD 1756
2005 MLD 1267
2005 MLD 415
2006 YLR 749
2006 PCRLJ 184
2004SCMR 1019
2005 PCRLJ 1269
Identification Parade
2006 MLD 14
2005 YLR 657
2006 MLD 431
2005 YLR 1404
2006 YLR 673
2005YLR 3151
Identification Parade not Held
Benefit of doubt
PLJ2005 Cr.C Lah 47
2006 MLD 614
2006 MLD 595
PLJ 2005 Cr.C.Pesh 999
2006 PDr.LJ 1033
2005 YLR 3141
Benefit of doubt
Custody of minor
CUSTODY OF MINOR
1. 2003MLD 977
2. 2003 CLC 1492
3. 2003 CLC1265 LAH
4. 1994 MLD 1199
5. 1983 SCMR 480
6. 1981 NLR 741
7. 1983 SCMR 481
8. 1996 CLC KAR
9. 2003 MLD 980
Bail in rape cases
PCRLJ 2006 CR.C LAHORE 433
PLJ 2006 CR,C LAH 101
PLJ 2006 CR.C LAH 106
PLJ 2005 CR.C LAH 813
PLJ 2005 CR.C LAH 542
2003 YLR 1757
PLJ 2003 CR.C LAH 640
Bail in Rape cases under hadood ordinance Sec 10/11
1984 PCRLJ 365
NLR 1993 56
86 PCRLJ 1587
PLD 84 SC 23
PLD 59 LAH 677
1990 ALD 92 (1)
1990 ALD 435 (2)
Delay in FIR in that cases
1990 ALD 546
NLR 1993 PESH 480
Decoy witness
1994 PCRLJ 292
1989 PCRLJ 1324/1334
Excused of accused in court
1980 PCRLJ 1---3
PLD 1988 KAR 535
1989 PCRLJ 1652
PLD 1993 373
Bail
Bail means to hand over an accused into the hands of surety from the custody of state.
Definition of bail after arrest U/S 497 Cr.P.C
PLJ 2006 SC (AJ & K ) 65.
Principles of bail after arrest.
1. Prima facie case 1991 MLD 1435
2. Appreciation of evidence 2004 PCr.LJ127
3. Benefit of doubt 199 PCr.Lj 582
4. Recovery 1998 MLD 1366
5. Delay in trial PLD 2005 Karachi 201
Distinction between bail after arrest and bail before arrest
2005 PCr.Lj 546 2005 YLR 3133
Grounds of Bail after Arrest
(i) Further Inquiry U/S 497
PLJ 2006 Cr.C.Lah 885 (Grant)
2005 YLR 2532(Grant)
PLJ 2006 Cr.C.Lah 97 (Grant)
2005 MLD 1072 (Grant)
(ii) Delay in Lodging FIR
PLJ 2006 Cr.C(Lah)117 (Grant)
2006 YLR 1863
2006 YLR 1563
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCr.LJ 1087
2006 YLR 712
Stay order 39 rule 1-2
1989 SCMR 130
1992 SCMR 138
1988 PLD S.C 1509
2000 SCMR 780
AIR 37 LAH 288
2003 CLC 16595
Grounds of bail before
2006 YLR 1305
2006 MLD 559
2006 MLD 1046
2006 PCRLJ 234
PLJ CRC(LAH)173
2006 MLD 491
Neccessary party
1906 MLD 195
1986 MLD 18
1957 LAH 882
1970 SCMR 839
1987 LAH 336/307
Ejectment of tenent for personal use
1996 SCMR 1097
1997 SCMR 1062
1991 SCMR 1831
1991 SCMR 2337
1987 MLD 715
1987 MLD 2367
1987 MLD 1078
1988 MLD 1974
NLR 1997 CIVIL 290
NLR 1999 AC 523
NLR 1997 CIVIL 706
PLJ 2003 SC 65
PLD 1987 KARACHI 180
1991 CLC 1381
1991 SCMR 1759
Judgements for maintainance of children to the father
PLD 1881 LAHORE 280
PLD 1986 LAHORE 272
PLD 1958(W.P)LAHORE 596
1985 MLD 96
NLR 1991 CLJ 430
1987 CLC 247
Judgements on ejectment of tenent for personel use
1996 SCMR 1097
1997 SCMR 1062
1991 SCMR 1831
1991 SCMR 2337
NLR 1997 CIVIL 290
NLR 1999 AC 23
NLR 1997 CIVIL 706
1987 MLD 715
1988 MLD 1974
1987 MLD 2367
1987 MLD 1078
PLD 1987 KARACHI 180
PLJ 2003 SC 65
1991 CLC 1381
1991 SCMR 1759
INTERIM RELIEF
2006 YLR 1574
2005 YLR 787
2006 PCRLJ 494
2006 PCRLJ 18
2005 MLD 535
2005 MLD 576
Bail in Juvenil Justice
2005 YLR 3196
2006 PCRLJ 542
2002 PCRLJ 657
2002 MLD 1817
2003 YLR 1792
2002 YLR 1045
2005 MLD 1247
2006 MLD 507
2004 MLD 1747
2005 MLD 1468
2005 YLR 838
2002 YLR 176
PLD 2004 PESHAWER 70
2005 PCRLJ 1500
2003 YLR 3204
2004 MLD 630
2006 PCRLJ 1788
2004 PCRLJ 426
22-A
2006 CLC 119
2005 YLR 1408
2005 YLR 3127
2006 MLD 1184
2005 PCRLJ 684
2005 PSC 34
PLD 2005 KAR 285
2006 YLR 1904
CANCELLATION OF BAIL
2006 YLR 1433
2006 YLR 1678
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCRLJ 1087
2006 PCRLJ 18
2006 PCRLJ 1070
2006 PCRLJ 292
2006 PCRLJ 1144
2006 PCRLJ 1009
2006 PCRLJ 249
2006 PCRLJ 986
2006 PCRLJ 405,423,986
PLJ 2006 CRC (LAH)955
PLJ 2006 SC 247
PLJ 2006 CRC (LAH)469,176,883
PLJ 2005 CRC (LAH) 65,268,120
2006 SCMR 93
SECTION 154 CRPC
PLJ 2006 CR.C (LAH) 190(DB)
2005 YLR 1329
2006 PCRLJ 1277
2004 PCRLJ 391
2004 PCRLJ 976
2004 SCMR 868
2005 SCMR 154
PLJ 2005 SC 24
PLJ 2006 LAH 507
INTERIM RELIEF
2006 YLR 1574
2005 YLR 787
2006 PCRLJ 494
2006 PCRLJ 18
2005 MLD 535
2005 MLD 576
249-A power of magistrate to aqcuite accused at any stage of proccedings
PLJ 2004 SC 2
PLD 1981 SC 607
NLR 1999 PCRLJ 137
2003 YLR 274
2005 PCRLJ 252
PLD 1984 SC 428
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2000 MLD 605
1991 PCRLJ 1381
1985 SCMR 257
PLD 1991 LAH 268
1999 MLD 1645
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2003 PCRLJ 12
PLJ 2003 AJ&K
2004 PCRLJ 1068
Locus Poenitentie U/S 121 of General Clause Act
PLD 1997 KARACHI 450
1998 SCMR 2745
2002 CLC 1464
2004 YLR 2047
2003 CLC 1196
2000 CLC 443
PLD 1964 SCMR 407
1001 SCMR 15
PLD 1985 AJK 17
PLD 1975 KARACHI 373
1994 MLD 751
249-A power of magistrate to aqcuite accused at any stage of proccedings
PLJ 2004 SC 2
PLD 1981 SC 607
NLR 1999 PCRLJ 137
2003 YLR 274
2005 PCRLJ 252
PLD 1984 SC 428
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2000 MLD 605
1991 PCRLJ 1381
1985 SCMR 257
PLD 1991 LAH 268
1999 MLD 1645
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2003 PCRLJ 12
PLJ 2003 AJ&K
2004 PCRLJ 1068
Locus Poenitentie U/S 121 of General Clause Act
PLD 1997 KARACHI 450
1998 SCMR 2745
2002 CLC 1464
2004 YLR 2047
2003 CLC 1196
2000 CLC 443
PLD 1964 SCMR 407
1001 SCMR 15
PLD 1985 AJK 17
PLD 1975 KARACHI 373
1994 MLD 751
Pre- Emption
1988 SCMR 892
1996 CLC 161
2001 SCMR 495
1991 MLD 506
2008 PLD MARCH/APRIL
Mian peer v/s Fakir mohammad
PLD 2007 SC 121
1991 SCMR 112
Accused not named in F.I.R
2006 YLR 1664
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCRLJ 423
2006 PCRLJ 1070
2006 PCRLJ 986
2006 PCRLJ 612
2006 PCRLJ 418
2006 YLR 418
2006 YLR 1404
2006 YLR 1872
Check dishounor / 489-F
PLJ 2004 545
PLD 99 KARACHI 121
PCRLJ 2004 343
PLD 95 SC 34
2004 PLJ LAHORE 522
Plea of Alibi
2005 MLD 1756
2005 MLD 1267
2005 MLD 415
2006 YLR 749
2006 PCRLJ 184
2004SCMR 1019
2005 PCRLJ 1269
Identification Parade
2006 MLD 14
2005 YLR 657
2006 MLD 431
2005 YLR 1404
2006 YLR 673
2005YLR 3151
Identification Parade not Held
Benefit of doubt
PLJ2005 Cr.C Lah 47
2006 MLD 614
2006 MLD 595
PLJ 2005 Cr.C.Pesh 999
2006 PDr.LJ 1033
2005 YLR 3141
Benefit of doubt
Custody of minor
CUSTODY OF MINOR
1. 2003MLD 977
2. 2003 CLC 1492
3. 2003 CLC1265 LAH
4. 1994 MLD 1199
5. 1983 SCMR 480
6. 1981 NLR 741
7. 1983 SCMR 481
8. 1996 CLC KAR
9. 2003 MLD 980
Bail in rape cases
PCRLJ 2006 CR.C LAHORE 433
PLJ 2006 CR,C LAH 101
PLJ 2006 CR.C LAH 106
PLJ 2005 CR.C LAH 813
PLJ 2005 CR.C LAH 542
2003 YLR 1757
PLJ 2003 CR.C LAH 640
Bail in Rape cases under hadood ordinance Sec 10/11
1984 PCRLJ 365
NLR 1993 56
86 PCRLJ 1587
PLD 84 SC 23
PLD 59 LAH 677
1990 ALD 92 (1)
1990 ALD 435 (2)
Delay in FIR in that cases
1990 ALD 546
NLR 1993 PESH 480
Decoy witness
1994 PCRLJ 292
1989 PCRLJ 1324/1334
Excused of accused in court
1980 PCRLJ 1---3
PLD 1988 KAR 535
1989 PCRLJ 1652
PLD 1993 373
Bail
Bail means to hand over an accused into the hands of surety from the custody of state.
Definition of bail after arrest U/S 497 Cr.P.C
PLJ 2006 SC (AJ & K ) 65.
Principles of bail after arrest.
1. Prima facie case 1991 MLD 1435
2. Appreciation of evidence 2004 PCr.LJ127
3. Benefit of doubt 199 PCr.Lj 582
4. Recovery 1998 MLD 1366
5. Delay in trial PLD 2005 Karachi 201
Distinction between bail after arrest and bail before arrest
2005 PCr.Lj 546 2005 YLR 3133
Grounds of Bail after Arrest
(i) Further Inquiry U/S 497
PLJ 2006 Cr.C.Lah 885 (Grant)
2005 YLR 2532(Grant)
PLJ 2006 Cr.C.Lah 97 (Grant)
2005 MLD 1072 (Grant)
(ii) Delay in Lodging FIR
PLJ 2006 Cr.C(Lah)117 (Grant)
2006 YLR 1863
2006 YLR 1563
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCr.LJ 1087
2006 YLR 712
Stay order 39 rule 1-2
1989 SCMR 130
1992 SCMR 138
1988 PLD S.C 1509
2000 SCMR 780
AIR 37 LAH 288
2003 CLC 16595
Grounds of bail before
2006 YLR 1305
2006 MLD 559
2006 MLD 1046
2006 PCRLJ 234
PLJ CRC(LAH)173
2006 MLD 491
Neccessary party
1906 MLD 195
1986 MLD 18
1957 LAH 882
1970 SCMR 839
1987 LAH 336/307
Ejectment of tenent for personal use
1996 SCMR 1097
1997 SCMR 1062
1991 SCMR 1831
1991 SCMR 2337
1987 MLD 715
1987 MLD 2367
1987 MLD 1078
1988 MLD 1974
NLR 1997 CIVIL 290
NLR 1999 AC 523
NLR 1997 CIVIL 706
PLJ 2003 SC 65
PLD 1987 KARACHI 180
1991 CLC 1381
1991 SCMR 1759
Judgements for maintainance of children to the father
PLD 1881 LAHORE 280
PLD 1986 LAHORE 272
PLD 1958(W.P)LAHORE 596
1985 MLD 96
NLR 1991 CLJ 430
1987 CLC 247
Judgements on ejectment of tenent for personel use
1996 SCMR 1097
1997 SCMR 1062
1991 SCMR 1831
1991 SCMR 2337
NLR 1997 CIVIL 290
NLR 1999 AC 23
NLR 1997 CIVIL 706
1987 MLD 715
1988 MLD 1974
1987 MLD 2367
1987 MLD 1078
PLD 1987 KARACHI 180
PLJ 2003 SC 65
1991 CLC 1381
1991 SCMR 1759
POCKET CIVIL LAW
Agreement
Agreement without consideration
1983 CLC 657
2002 SCMT 1089
Oral agreement
Inadequacy of price
Mere possession is no ground
No proof of money
No proof of payment
Sale on behalf of other
Suit for declaration is not competent
Suit decreed
2010 MLD 986
2010 SCMR 537
2011 YLR 65
Pleading of an oral condition in contradiction of written agreement
2014 CLC 1590
Signed by one party only
2010 SCMR 334
2013 YLR 1017
2016 CLC 114
Adverse possession
1991 SCMR 2063
2014 MLD 1602
Amendments of pleadings Pre emption Amendments of plaint ,Allowed
PLD 2001 SC 518
Disallowed
PLD 1978 SC 242
PLD 2007 SC 302
PLD 2013 SC 239
2006 SCMR 315
Amendment in prayer Land mark judgement Oral request for amendment
PLD 2001 SC 518
Proposed amendment should be given Sou moto amendments Unauthorized amendment VIP Arbitration Pre-requisites
PLD 2015 SC 154
Limitation
2015 MLD 1821
Panchayat
PLD 2010 Lah 437
Benamidar suit
PLD 1977 SC 75
1991 SCMR 703
1994 CLC 1437
2001 SCMR 1443
2005 SCMR 577
2011 SCMR 1550
2015 CLC 973
2015 MLD 642
PLD 2010 SC 569
PLD 2011 SC 829
2015 CLC 696
2008 SCMR 143
2011 CLC 79
PLD 2012 Lah 141
Cantonments Act 1924 Parking fee
2015 SCMR 1385
Cause of action Defamation cases
PLD 2015 SC 42
Negation able instrument cheque
2014 CLC 1448
Condonation of delay
1984 SCMR 890
Conduct of lawyers
2015 SCMR 810
Contempt proceedings Custody of minor
PLD 2003 supreme Court 877
PLD 2011 SC 680
PLD 2002 SC 303
Court Fee Defamation ordinance
Court fee is necessary
2015 CLC 339
Executing court cannot order court fee
General
PLD 1992 FSC 15
Gift
Deceleration of gifts
1986 CLC 2057
2007 YLR 1454
Mutation
1992 SCMR 1306
2007 CLC 36
Possession
2007 SCMR 1884
Pre emption
1985 CLC 275
Custodian of record is the best judge
1984 SCMR 321
1989 SCMR 819
PLD 1991 SC 691
Damages
Malicious prosecution ingredients
2006 YLR 1167
2016 MLD 418 damages
2004 YLR 482
2013 MLD 584
2015 MLD 601
PLD 1994 SC 476
PLD 2013 LAH 170
2006 MLD 907
2008 CLD 85
PLD 1989 LAH 200
PLD 1990 SC 28
PLD 1996 SC 737
Declaration suit Aaqnama
2011 YLR 697
Date of birth change
2015 SCMR 456
2016 PLC ( Cs 92)
2011 CLC 265
Decree cannot be granted on the basis of agreement
2016 CLC 114
Decree cannot be claim on Gift
2007 YLR 1454
2011 YLR 82
Iqrarnama
2011 YLR 888
PLD 1990 LAH 467
Oral agreement
2011 CLC 592
Possession
2016 MLD 190
PLD 1981 Lah 696
2007 SCMR 1884
2010 CLC 1646
Specific performance
2007 SCMR 551
Cancellation of documents
PLD 969 Dacca 357
1986 CLC 2057
1993 CLC 1391
2002 CLC 1549
PLD 1965 Dacca 439
Declaration
PLD 1965 Dacca 439
2002 CLC 1549
2000 MLD 1611
PLD 1967 Kar 733
Suit on the basis of un registered sale deed
2015 YLR 1845
No deceleration if the suit is not filled for his benefit
Refund of court fee
PLD 2016 Lah 156
2011 CLC 314
2008 CLC 464
2004 CLC 430
1999 YLR 1147
PLD 1993 SC 76
1995 CLC 111
2008 MLD 546
2012 MLD 1334
2008 CLC 1256
Defamation is personal wrong
2015 CLC 834
PLD 2010 SC 612
Demarcation
1982 CLC 1732
2013 CLC 1823
1995 SCMR 1069
2002 YLR 3785
2003 CLC 122
2006 CLC 1028
2008 MLD 592
PLD 2003 PES 23
PLD 2008 Lah 352
2011 MLD 1662
2012 SCMR 196
2014 CLC 1442
2014 YLR 2053
Electricity matter Detection bill
PLD 2012 SC 371
2016 YLR 267
2016 MLD 82
2015 MLD 299
2014 YLR 2551
2011 YLR 1701
PLD 2014 Pesh 271
2014 MLD 1680
PLD 2008 Lah 428
Jurisdiction
PLD 2012 SC 371
2015 MLD 1307
2015 YLR 1598
P L D 2015 Lahore 146
2011 CLC 765
2011 SCMR 226
Evacuee trust property Bar on jurisdiction of civil court
2014 CLC 1718
PLD 2011 SC 126
Execution : Attachment of money kept in bank
PLD 1969 SC 301
2016 CLC 1085
Executing court cannot order court fee Execution bared remedy not right
2007 MLD 857
Execution of decree in AJK
1986 CLC 1309
PLD 2006 ALK 1
Family :Maintenance after attaining age of majority
PLD 2013 SC 557
Objection petition
2003 SCMR 181
Objection regarding deficient court fee
2000 YLR 2696
Pension
2011 CLC 1040
Section 48 time for execution( Limitation) After decree filed application under order 9 rule
1998 CLC 690
First Application
2016 CLC 256
2015 CLC 1833
2013 SCMR 05
2013 YLR 226
2012 CLC 1227
PLD 1990 SC 778
First application consigned to record room second
1988 MLD 1379
2015 SCMR 1335
PLD 1968 KAR 10
Merger of decree
Contra
2013 SCMR 5
1992 SCMR R 241
1997 CLC 1479
1997 MLD 1917
Fatal Accident Act
2011 SCMR 939
Filing of suit by un-authorized person
2015 CLC 1418
PLD 1971 SC 550
Filing of written statement by un-authorized
Fraud
1969 SCMR 299
1993 SCMR 710
2003 SCMR 549
PLD 2002 SC 677
General power of Attorney
1999 SCMR 2594
2003 YLR 2843
2011 CLC 848
PLD 1985 SUPREME COURT 341
PLD 2003 SUPREME COURT 494
PLD 2002 SC 71
PLD 2003 SC 676
PLD 2005 SC 418
PLD 2008 SC 389
PLD 2014 LAH 417
PLD 2003 SC 31
Power of attorney written abroad
Statement by Attorney
P L D 2016 Lahore 140
Gift
Conditional gift of corpus of property valid but condition is invalid
Delivery of possession
Husband to wife
2012 MLD 1545
Un-registered
2004 CLC 1343
PLD 1976 SC 781
PLD 2005 SC 311
PLD 2008 SC 73
Usufructry gift is valid
1982 CLC 2082
2005 SCMR 710
PLD 1970 LAH 502
PLD 1991 SC 466
PLD 1997 SC 730
PLD 1963 (W.P) PESHAWAR 199
PLD 1975 SUPREME COURT 37
PLD 1975 SUPREME COURT 383
2011 SCMR 803
PLD 1969 LAH 338 Gift and hiba
Guardian
Delay in filing application
1995 CLC 306
PLD 2015 LAH 401
Jurisdiction
PLD 2012 SUPREME COURT 66
Grand mother (Nani)
2011MLD 1814
2011 YLR 348 LAH
2013 MLD 741
Sale of property of minor
PLD 2015 SINDH 46
When both married
1987 CLC 1675
Imam Masjid
Appointment PLJ 2005 LAH 639
Inheritance :Group insurance, benevolent funds are not tarka
Contra
Contra view
PLD 2013 PESHAWAR 1
2014 CLC 126
PLD 1991 SC 731
PLD 2010 KAR 512
Presumed to be Sunni unless proved otherwise
Contra 2010 SCMR 1915
PLD 1965 SC 134
PLD 1990 SC 01
Shia law
Share of mother
Shia Wife
2006 SCMR 1916
2012 YLR 713
2014 CLC 945
PLD 2002 SC 677
Injunction : Cheque
2014 CLC 1448
No need for specific extension if written statement is not filed
1999 SCMR 2215
NLR 2000 Civil 14
Undertaking on risks and costs
2008 CLC 1481
1981 PCLRJ 1018
1990 CLC 609
2006 CLC 1574
PLD 2002 DC 303
Interpleader suit
2015 CLC 934
Interpretation of laws
PLD 2010 SC 612
Judicial protection Act 1856
Land mark judgment
PLD 1966 SC 628
Judicial restrain
PLD 1962 LAH 411
Land Acquisition Act 1894
Unutilized land
2015 SCMR 1428
Land revenue Act
Partition
2016 MLD 753
2015 YLR 2457
Correction of entries
PLD 2015 Lah 687
2015 CLC 1084
2015 YLR 750
Jamabandi
PLD 1975 SC 369
KHASRA GIRDAWARI
2015 CLC 473
2012 YLR 521
1990 CLC 1617
Fard Badar
PLD 1964 SC 143
ALA and Adna Malik
PLD 1956 W-P 17(Rev)
PLD 1975 SC 369
1993 SCMR 381
2010 CLC 1465
2010 CLC 1468
Dhakheel Kar
2016 MLD 766
1989 CLC 457
Roznamch Waqiati is a public document
1999 XLR 1979
Shamlat Deh
1985 CLC 796 Shamlat
2003 SCMR 1857 Shamlat
2006 SCMR 659
2012 CLC 1803 SHAMLAT
2016 MLD 568 SHAMLAT
2008 MLD 592
Legitimacy of child
land mark judgment
PLD 2015 SC 327
1988 SCMR 08
2009 ML 962
PL 2010 LAH 422
PLJ 2014 LAH 860
Limitation Act
Suit for compensation
2015 MLD 111
Suit for specific performance
2016 MLD 14
2015 SCMR 21
2013 YLR 777
PLD 2012 SC 247
2013 CLC 1570
2014 CLC 499
Administration suit
2015 CLC 672
Suit for redemption of mortgage
2008 CLC 1102
2009 SCMR 191
PLD 2009 Pes 93
PLD 2011 Lah 1218
2014 MLD 1602
2014 CLC 1252
Suit for declaration
2011 SCMR 222
2015 MLD 1481
2015 MLD 191
2013 CLC 1246
2014 MLD 451
PLD 2014 SC 545
2012 CLC 1944
PLD 2013 SC 268
Suit for possession
2015 YLR 843
2004 SCMR 1502
PLD 2012 SC (AJ&K) 46
Limitation
Co sharer
2008 SCMR 905 limitation against co sharer
Limitation can not be waived
2006 SCMR 170
1999 SCMR 2266
2011 SCMR 222
Lis pendence
Transfer within the period of time of appeal
2014 CLC 1689
PLD 2006 LAH 223
Maxim
PLD 2011 SC 680
Mental health ordinance
Suit filed on behalf of unsound mind person
2006 YLR 2848
PLD 2006 LAH 654
NADRA
Adopted Child
P L D 2016 Lahore 393
PLD 2016 BAL 1
Negotiable instrument
Cheque
2014 CLC 1448
Oaths Act 1873
Procedure of oath during suit
1993 CLC 1552
2001 MLD 128
PLD 1990 SC 841
PLD 2015 LAH 348
Pardanasheen lady
2001 SCMR 1591
2004 SCMR 1259 Parda Nasheen Lady
PLD 2008 SC 140 Parda Nasheen Lady
Partition , Co sharer , Injunction
Granted
1993 SCMR 1463
PLD 1961 DACCA 259
1999 SCMR 2325 Co Sharer
Joint khata
1993 SCMR 1463
Jurisdiction of civil court
PLD 2016 PES 08
Limitation
1987 CLC 195
1994 CLC 247
2006 MLD 1496
AIR 1917 MADRAS 244
PLD 1994 SC 462
PLD 2014 LAH 417
Partial suit for partition
PLD 2009 SC 198
Private partition
2003 YLR 362 Not allowed
Permanent injunction
Section 54
Co sharer
1999 SCMR 2325
No stay in harassment
Title of property is in dispute
2005 SCMR 1872
1986 MLD 265
Pleadings
Mufassil court lawyers
2000 CLC 267
PLD 969 SC 565
Questions not raised in petition but argued by the counsel
2014 SCMR 1858
Question beyond the scope of pleading
PLD 2010 SC 965
Written statement
Defendants file separate written statement
2008 CLD 85
PLD 1977 SC 109
Polygamy
1992 MLD 93
2004 YLR 2242
PLD 1991 SC 1074
PLD 2003 SC 128
Possession
Adverse possession
1991 SCMR 2063
Power of attorney
Power of attorney to counsel
1987 CLC 813
1992 SCMR 1488
1995 CLC 1572
PLD 1969 KAR 123
PLD 1985 SC 341
PLD 1987 LAH 392
PLD 2008 KAR 342
PLD 2015 LAH 57
Pre-emption
Land mark judgments
PLD 2007 SC 302
PLD 2013 SC 171
Amendments of plaint
Allowed
PLD 2001 SC 518
Dis allowed
PLD 1978 SC 242
PLD 2007 SC 302
PLD 2013 SC 239
Date time and place
2014 CLC 1819
Exchange and sale proof
1981 CLC 527
2014 SCMR 1217
PLD 1961 PES 62
Jurisdictional value
2002 YLR 1592
Land having characteristic of urban property
2013 SCMR 913
PLD 2006 SC 594
Non disclosure of date of notice
2012 SCMR 911
2013 CLC 1488
2014 CLC 937
PLD 2008 SC 559
Postman
2007 SCMR 1105
2013 SCMR 866
2014 CLC 1425
PLD 2012 Lah 234
Urban immovable property
2015 MLD 976
Zar-e-some
1991 SCMR 487
1995 MLD 1011
1997 PLD 549 LAH
2000 CLC 808
2000 NLR CIVIL 220
2000 NLR CIVIL 422
2000 SCMR 650
PLD 1980 LAH 104
Presence by clerks of Advocates
PLD 2014 LAH 22
Principles
Action personal’s monitor cum
PLD 1967 KAR 755
1996 MLD 803
2015 CLC 834
Doctrine of sinker
PLJ 2006 LAH 263
Locus poentenitia
PLD 2015 IS 165
CONTRA
2000 SCMR 907
2007 SCMR 318
2015 CLC 1579
Specs successionis
1986 CLC 2923
PLD 2015 ISL 65
Doctrine of sinker
PlJ 2006 Lah 263
Actio personalis moritur cum persona
1996 MLD 803
2015 CLC 834
PLD 1967 kar 755
PT- 1
1993 CLC 1702
Public interest litigation
2003 SCMR 1756
2007 CLC 107
PLD 2009 217
Punjab local Govt Ordinance
Offences
2015 MLD 1745
Sealing of premises
2015 MLD 1745
Qanoon-e- Shahdat Order
Admissibility of documents
Photo copy
PLD 1993 SC 160
Admission art- 34
PLD 1975 SC 311
2013 CLC 1171
PLD 1992 Pesh 144
2016 CLC 3765
PLD 2015 472
PLD 2015 SC 187
2015 SCMR 21
2014 YLR 1964
2012 YLR 1797
2014 CLC 322
PLD 1971 SC 730
2013 MLD 1459
Art 79
Must be proved by two attesting witnesses
Contra
1997 SCMR 260
2015 SCMR 1044
PLD 2011 SC 241
One marginal produced
Suit dismissed
2014 CLC 1708
Scribe as marginal witness requirement
Scribe not to equated with original witness
2015 SCMR 1044
PLD 2011 SC 241
2014 CLC 1745
Art 129. E
2004 SCMR 964
2010 SCMR 583
Beneficiary of document
Burden to prove
2000 SCMR 1647
2009 XLR 414
Court witness
Documentary evidence
Exhibition and DE exhibition
2010 YLR 619
1971 PCr.LJ 609
I-D card
2011 SCMR 837
Private document tendering off
Registered documents
1993 SCMR 462
Secondary evidence
1986 MLD 1500
2004 YLR 1113
Written agreement excludes oral
1986 CLC 770
1988 SCMR 753
2001 CLC 1332
2002 YLR 2653
2003 YLR 1126
2005 MLD 646
PLD 2004 SC 860
2011 SCMR 837
Estoppel
PLD 2015 SC 212
Evidence discussion
PLD 2001 LAH 495
Evidence meaning of
PLD 1994 SC 501
Exhibition of documents
Photocopy
1996 SCMR 1329
Expert evidence
Evidentiary value
1971 PCR.LJ 918
2010 PCR.LJ 1832
2015 SCMR 284
How a document is proved
PLJ 2002 LAH 1982
Id card probative value of
1991 SCMR 840
2011 SCMR 837
Issues
1994 CLC 1280
Oral evidence
2000 MLD 1653
Pleadings
1991 CLC 1937
PLD 2010 SC 965
Separate written statements
Private documents
1990 MLD 1934
1994 SCMR 1945
1996 MLD 1819
2004 YLR 1841
PLD 1973 SC 160
PLD 1993 LAH 303
Public documents
2002 CLC 518 C
Roznamcha of patwari
1999 YLR 1979
Re examination of witness
2005 SCMR 152
Report of FSL
2004 SCMR 1859
2013 CLC 1171
Requirement of two witness art. 79
2003 YLR 673
PLD 1996 SC 256
Right to cross examination
Cross examination on his own witness
1998 CLC 1148
Roznamcha
2003 YLR 1126
Secondary evidence
2000 MLD 1653
2004 YLR 1113
Standard to prove
Discrepancies in statements
Documents not produced in evidence
Question of fact alleged but not controverted
Registration ACT
Sec 27/A
1993 CLC 2073
1994 MLD 1864
AIR 1960 PATNA 470
AIR 1985 MADHA PARDHESH 12
NLR 1994 CIVIL 482
NLR 1995 CIVIL 209
PLD 1996 LAH 86
PLJ 1994 QUETTA 4 DB
Sec 47
2002 SCMR 1821
2011 SCMR 794
PLD 2003 SC 818
Sec 71
1993 CLC 2073
1994 MLD 1864
AIR 1985
MADHYA PARDESH 12
NLR 1995 CIVIL 209
PLJ 1994 QUETTA 4DB
Rehabilitation act 1956
Land once allotted can not be settled in compensation pool
2013 SCMR 1558
Rejection of Plaint
Preemption on point of court fee
1985 CLC 275
Rendition of accounts
Rent Restriction Ordinance
Co owner filing of petition
2002 SCMR 429
2014 CLC 1242
2014 YLR 161 RENT
Sec 08
2013 SCMR 1520
Fine is liable to be recovered in rent
PLD 2009 SC 71
Report of FSL
Restoration. Dismiss in default
When fixed for interlocutory application fixed for interim application
1992 SCMR 707
Once the suit is restored all orders become alive
Return of plaint
2011 SCMR 806 Banking Court
Review
2008 SCMR 554
2009 SCMR 394
PLD 2007 SC 121
Revision petition
Dismissed for non-prosecution
PLD 2000 SC 820
Sale
Sale to minor
2011 SCMR 837
Sale with consideration
2015 CLC 994
Section 91 & 92 CpC
Permission is not necessary
PLD 2016 SIND 26
2008 CLC 1411
2009 SCMR 574
2010 MLD 1714
Simplifier suit for possession
PLD 2013 LAH 513
Specific performance
Oral agreement to sell
Time when essence of
PLJ 2003 SC 309
Stamp Act
Stamp vendor
2012 PCR. LJ 255
Suit against dead defendant
2003 SCMR 464
Suit valuation ACT
Summons
TPA ACT
Transfer by ostensible owner
PLD 2013 LAH 517
Waiver
Withdrawal of suit
Extension of time after withdraw of first suit is not permissible
2014 CLC 1662
Firstly submitted then retracted
2005 CLC 1101
2013 CLC 1246
Limitation for filing fresh
2011 SCMR 345
Partition suit
PLD 2003 SC 818
2013 SCMR 464
Writ jurisdiction
Writ against the order of provisional court
2014 CLC 1581/1585
PLD 1996 LAH 672
PLD 2013 SC 255
7 rule 11
Dismissed
Agreement to sell declared forged by handwriting expert
2016 SCMR 192
Applicability in application U/s 12/2 CpC
2008 CLC 164
Partial or piecemeal rejection
PLD 2016 SINDH 426
Granted
12(2) CpC
Decree obtained without pleading party
2015 CLC 1428
Forum
1992 SCMR 241
PLD 2013 SC 478
PLD 2016 SC 358
PLD 2015 PESH 39
Framing of issue
2015 SCMR 1708
2013 MLD 1309
2012 CLC 1621
2011 YLR 2614
2006 YLR 677
Time for filing application 12/2
2016 YLR 452
PLD 2015 LAH 220
2015 CLC 183
2008 CLC 164
Treating application under order IX rule 13
2014 C L C 914
Contra
2014 SCMR 914
1987 SCMR 1440
17(3) CpC
1985 SCMR 585
2006 CLC 1680
2006 MLD 1577
2007 MLD 1072
2008 CLC 252
2008 SCMR 942
2008 SCMR 1335
Agreement
Agreement without consideration
1983 CLC 657
2002 SCMT 1089
Oral agreement
Inadequacy of price
Mere possession is no ground
No proof of money
No proof of payment
Sale on behalf of other
Suit for declaration is not competent
Suit decreed
2010 MLD 986
2010 SCMR 537
2011 YLR 65
Pleading of an oral condition in contradiction of written agreement
2014 CLC 1590
Signed by one party only
2010 SCMR 334
2013 YLR 1017
2016 CLC 114
Adverse possession
1991 SCMR 2063
2014 MLD 1602
Amendments of pleadings Pre emption Amendments of plaint ,Allowed
PLD 2001 SC 518
Disallowed
PLD 1978 SC 242
PLD 2007 SC 302
PLD 2013 SC 239
2006 SCMR 315
Amendment in prayer Land mark judgement Oral request for amendment
PLD 2001 SC 518
Proposed amendment should be given Sou moto amendments Unauthorized amendment VIP Arbitration Pre-requisites
PLD 2015 SC 154
Limitation
2015 MLD 1821
Panchayat
PLD 2010 Lah 437
Benamidar suit
PLD 1977 SC 75
1991 SCMR 703
1994 CLC 1437
2001 SCMR 1443
2005 SCMR 577
2011 SCMR 1550
2015 CLC 973
2015 MLD 642
PLD 2010 SC 569
PLD 2011 SC 829
2015 CLC 696
2008 SCMR 143
2011 CLC 79
PLD 2012 Lah 141
Cantonments Act 1924 Parking fee
2015 SCMR 1385
Cause of action Defamation cases
PLD 2015 SC 42
Negation able instrument cheque
2014 CLC 1448
Condonation of delay
1984 SCMR 890
Conduct of lawyers
2015 SCMR 810
Contempt proceedings Custody of minor
PLD 2003 supreme Court 877
PLD 2011 SC 680
PLD 2002 SC 303
Court Fee Defamation ordinance
Court fee is necessary
2015 CLC 339
Executing court cannot order court fee
General
PLD 1992 FSC 15
Gift
Deceleration of gifts
1986 CLC 2057
2007 YLR 1454
Mutation
1992 SCMR 1306
2007 CLC 36
Possession
2007 SCMR 1884
Pre emption
1985 CLC 275
Custodian of record is the best judge
1984 SCMR 321
1989 SCMR 819
PLD 1991 SC 691
Damages
Malicious prosecution ingredients
2006 YLR 1167
2016 MLD 418 damages
2004 YLR 482
2013 MLD 584
2015 MLD 601
PLD 1994 SC 476
PLD 2013 LAH 170
2006 MLD 907
2008 CLD 85
PLD 1989 LAH 200
PLD 1990 SC 28
PLD 1996 SC 737
Declaration suit Aaqnama
2011 YLR 697
Date of birth change
2015 SCMR 456
2016 PLC ( Cs 92)
2011 CLC 265
Decree cannot be granted on the basis of agreement
2016 CLC 114
Decree cannot be claim on Gift
2007 YLR 1454
2011 YLR 82
Iqrarnama
2011 YLR 888
PLD 1990 LAH 467
Oral agreement
2011 CLC 592
Possession
2016 MLD 190
PLD 1981 Lah 696
2007 SCMR 1884
2010 CLC 1646
Specific performance
2007 SCMR 551
Cancellation of documents
PLD 969 Dacca 357
1986 CLC 2057
1993 CLC 1391
2002 CLC 1549
PLD 1965 Dacca 439
Declaration
PLD 1965 Dacca 439
2002 CLC 1549
2000 MLD 1611
PLD 1967 Kar 733
Suit on the basis of un registered sale deed
2015 YLR 1845
No deceleration if the suit is not filled for his benefit
Refund of court fee
PLD 2016 Lah 156
2011 CLC 314
2008 CLC 464
2004 CLC 430
1999 YLR 1147
PLD 1993 SC 76
1995 CLC 111
2008 MLD 546
2012 MLD 1334
2008 CLC 1256
Defamation is personal wrong
2015 CLC 834
PLD 2010 SC 612
Demarcation
1982 CLC 1732
2013 CLC 1823
1995 SCMR 1069
2002 YLR 3785
2003 CLC 122
2006 CLC 1028
2008 MLD 592
PLD 2003 PES 23
PLD 2008 Lah 352
2011 MLD 1662
2012 SCMR 196
2014 CLC 1442
2014 YLR 2053
Electricity matter Detection bill
PLD 2012 SC 371
2016 YLR 267
2016 MLD 82
2015 MLD 299
2014 YLR 2551
2011 YLR 1701
PLD 2014 Pesh 271
2014 MLD 1680
PLD 2008 Lah 428
Jurisdiction
PLD 2012 SC 371
2015 MLD 1307
2015 YLR 1598
P L D 2015 Lahore 146
2011 CLC 765
2011 SCMR 226
Evacuee trust property Bar on jurisdiction of civil court
2014 CLC 1718
PLD 2011 SC 126
Execution : Attachment of money kept in bank
PLD 1969 SC 301
2016 CLC 1085
Executing court cannot order court fee Execution bared remedy not right
2007 MLD 857
Execution of decree in AJK
1986 CLC 1309
PLD 2006 ALK 1
Family :Maintenance after attaining age of majority
PLD 2013 SC 557
Objection petition
2003 SCMR 181
Objection regarding deficient court fee
2000 YLR 2696
Pension
2011 CLC 1040
Section 48 time for execution( Limitation) After decree filed application under order 9 rule
1998 CLC 690
First Application
2016 CLC 256
2015 CLC 1833
2013 SCMR 05
2013 YLR 226
2012 CLC 1227
PLD 1990 SC 778
First application consigned to record room second
1988 MLD 1379
2015 SCMR 1335
PLD 1968 KAR 10
Merger of decree
Contra
2013 SCMR 5
1992 SCMR R 241
1997 CLC 1479
1997 MLD 1917
Fatal Accident Act
2011 SCMR 939
Filing of suit by un-authorized person
2015 CLC 1418
PLD 1971 SC 550
Filing of written statement by un-authorized
Fraud
1969 SCMR 299
1993 SCMR 710
2003 SCMR 549
PLD 2002 SC 677
General power of Attorney
1999 SCMR 2594
2003 YLR 2843
2011 CLC 848
PLD 1985 SUPREME COURT 341
PLD 2003 SUPREME COURT 494
PLD 2002 SC 71
PLD 2003 SC 676
PLD 2005 SC 418
PLD 2008 SC 389
PLD 2014 LAH 417
PLD 2003 SC 31
Power of attorney written abroad
Statement by Attorney
P L D 2016 Lahore 140
Gift
Conditional gift of corpus of property valid but condition is invalid
Delivery of possession
Husband to wife
2012 MLD 1545
Un-registered
2004 CLC 1343
PLD 1976 SC 781
PLD 2005 SC 311
PLD 2008 SC 73
Usufructry gift is valid
1982 CLC 2082
2005 SCMR 710
PLD 1970 LAH 502
PLD 1991 SC 466
PLD 1997 SC 730
PLD 1963 (W.P) PESHAWAR 199
PLD 1975 SUPREME COURT 37
PLD 1975 SUPREME COURT 383
2011 SCMR 803
PLD 1969 LAH 338 Gift and hiba
Guardian
Delay in filing application
1995 CLC 306
PLD 2015 LAH 401
Jurisdiction
PLD 2012 SUPREME COURT 66
Grand mother (Nani)
2011MLD 1814
2011 YLR 348 LAH
2013 MLD 741
Sale of property of minor
PLD 2015 SINDH 46
When both married
1987 CLC 1675
Imam Masjid
Appointment PLJ 2005 LAH 639
Inheritance :Group insurance, benevolent funds are not tarka
Contra
Contra view
PLD 2013 PESHAWAR 1
2014 CLC 126
PLD 1991 SC 731
PLD 2010 KAR 512
Presumed to be Sunni unless proved otherwise
Contra 2010 SCMR 1915
PLD 1965 SC 134
PLD 1990 SC 01
Shia law
Share of mother
Shia Wife
2006 SCMR 1916
2012 YLR 713
2014 CLC 945
PLD 2002 SC 677
Injunction : Cheque
2014 CLC 1448
No need for specific extension if written statement is not filed
1999 SCMR 2215
NLR 2000 Civil 14
Undertaking on risks and costs
2008 CLC 1481
1981 PCLRJ 1018
1990 CLC 609
2006 CLC 1574
PLD 2002 DC 303
Interpleader suit
2015 CLC 934
Interpretation of laws
PLD 2010 SC 612
Judicial protection Act 1856
Land mark judgment
PLD 1966 SC 628
Judicial restrain
PLD 1962 LAH 411
Land Acquisition Act 1894
Unutilized land
2015 SCMR 1428
Land revenue Act
Partition
2016 MLD 753
2015 YLR 2457
Correction of entries
PLD 2015 Lah 687
2015 CLC 1084
2015 YLR 750
Jamabandi
PLD 1975 SC 369
KHASRA GIRDAWARI
2015 CLC 473
2012 YLR 521
1990 CLC 1617
Fard Badar
PLD 1964 SC 143
ALA and Adna Malik
PLD 1956 W-P 17(Rev)
PLD 1975 SC 369
1993 SCMR 381
2010 CLC 1465
2010 CLC 1468
Dhakheel Kar
2016 MLD 766
1989 CLC 457
Roznamch Waqiati is a public document
1999 XLR 1979
Shamlat Deh
1985 CLC 796 Shamlat
2003 SCMR 1857 Shamlat
2006 SCMR 659
2012 CLC 1803 SHAMLAT
2016 MLD 568 SHAMLAT
2008 MLD 592
Legitimacy of child
land mark judgment
PLD 2015 SC 327
1988 SCMR 08
2009 ML 962
PL 2010 LAH 422
PLJ 2014 LAH 860
Limitation Act
Suit for compensation
2015 MLD 111
Suit for specific performance
2016 MLD 14
2015 SCMR 21
2013 YLR 777
PLD 2012 SC 247
2013 CLC 1570
2014 CLC 499
Administration suit
2015 CLC 672
Suit for redemption of mortgage
2008 CLC 1102
2009 SCMR 191
PLD 2009 Pes 93
PLD 2011 Lah 1218
2014 MLD 1602
2014 CLC 1252
Suit for declaration
2011 SCMR 222
2015 MLD 1481
2015 MLD 191
2013 CLC 1246
2014 MLD 451
PLD 2014 SC 545
2012 CLC 1944
PLD 2013 SC 268
Suit for possession
2015 YLR 843
2004 SCMR 1502
PLD 2012 SC (AJ&K) 46
Limitation
Co sharer
2008 SCMR 905 limitation against co sharer
Limitation can not be waived
2006 SCMR 170
1999 SCMR 2266
2011 SCMR 222
Lis pendence
Transfer within the period of time of appeal
2014 CLC 1689
PLD 2006 LAH 223
Maxim
PLD 2011 SC 680
Mental health ordinance
Suit filed on behalf of unsound mind person
2006 YLR 2848
PLD 2006 LAH 654
NADRA
Adopted Child
P L D 2016 Lahore 393
PLD 2016 BAL 1
Negotiable instrument
Cheque
2014 CLC 1448
Oaths Act 1873
Procedure of oath during suit
1993 CLC 1552
2001 MLD 128
PLD 1990 SC 841
PLD 2015 LAH 348
Pardanasheen lady
2001 SCMR 1591
2004 SCMR 1259 Parda Nasheen Lady
PLD 2008 SC 140 Parda Nasheen Lady
Partition , Co sharer , Injunction
Granted
1993 SCMR 1463
PLD 1961 DACCA 259
1999 SCMR 2325 Co Sharer
Joint khata
1993 SCMR 1463
Jurisdiction of civil court
PLD 2016 PES 08
Limitation
1987 CLC 195
1994 CLC 247
2006 MLD 1496
AIR 1917 MADRAS 244
PLD 1994 SC 462
PLD 2014 LAH 417
Partial suit for partition
PLD 2009 SC 198
Private partition
2003 YLR 362 Not allowed
Permanent injunction
Section 54
Co sharer
1999 SCMR 2325
No stay in harassment
Title of property is in dispute
2005 SCMR 1872
1986 MLD 265
Pleadings
Mufassil court lawyers
2000 CLC 267
PLD 969 SC 565
Questions not raised in petition but argued by the counsel
2014 SCMR 1858
Question beyond the scope of pleading
PLD 2010 SC 965
Written statement
Defendants file separate written statement
2008 CLD 85
PLD 1977 SC 109
Polygamy
1992 MLD 93
2004 YLR 2242
PLD 1991 SC 1074
PLD 2003 SC 128
Possession
Adverse possession
1991 SCMR 2063
Power of attorney
Power of attorney to counsel
1987 CLC 813
1992 SCMR 1488
1995 CLC 1572
PLD 1969 KAR 123
PLD 1985 SC 341
PLD 1987 LAH 392
PLD 2008 KAR 342
PLD 2015 LAH 57
Pre-emption
Land mark judgments
PLD 2007 SC 302
PLD 2013 SC 171
Amendments of plaint
Allowed
PLD 2001 SC 518
Dis allowed
PLD 1978 SC 242
PLD 2007 SC 302
PLD 2013 SC 239
Date time and place
2014 CLC 1819
Exchange and sale proof
1981 CLC 527
2014 SCMR 1217
PLD 1961 PES 62
Jurisdictional value
2002 YLR 1592
Land having characteristic of urban property
2013 SCMR 913
PLD 2006 SC 594
Non disclosure of date of notice
2012 SCMR 911
2013 CLC 1488
2014 CLC 937
PLD 2008 SC 559
Postman
2007 SCMR 1105
2013 SCMR 866
2014 CLC 1425
PLD 2012 Lah 234
Urban immovable property
2015 MLD 976
Zar-e-some
1991 SCMR 487
1995 MLD 1011
1997 PLD 549 LAH
2000 CLC 808
2000 NLR CIVIL 220
2000 NLR CIVIL 422
2000 SCMR 650
PLD 1980 LAH 104
Presence by clerks of Advocates
PLD 2014 LAH 22
Principles
Action personal’s monitor cum
PLD 1967 KAR 755
1996 MLD 803
2015 CLC 834
Doctrine of sinker
PLJ 2006 LAH 263
Locus poentenitia
PLD 2015 IS 165
CONTRA
2000 SCMR 907
2007 SCMR 318
2015 CLC 1579
Specs successionis
1986 CLC 2923
PLD 2015 ISL 65
Doctrine of sinker
PlJ 2006 Lah 263
Actio personalis moritur cum persona
1996 MLD 803
2015 CLC 834
PLD 1967 kar 755
PT- 1
1993 CLC 1702
Public interest litigation
2003 SCMR 1756
2007 CLC 107
PLD 2009 217
Punjab local Govt Ordinance
Offences
2015 MLD 1745
Sealing of premises
2015 MLD 1745
Qanoon-e- Shahdat Order
Admissibility of documents
Photo copy
PLD 1993 SC 160
Admission art- 34
PLD 1975 SC 311
2013 CLC 1171
PLD 1992 Pesh 144
2016 CLC 3765
PLD 2015 472
PLD 2015 SC 187
2015 SCMR 21
2014 YLR 1964
2012 YLR 1797
2014 CLC 322
PLD 1971 SC 730
2013 MLD 1459
Art 79
Must be proved by two attesting witnesses
Contra
1997 SCMR 260
2015 SCMR 1044
PLD 2011 SC 241
One marginal produced
Suit dismissed
2014 CLC 1708
Scribe as marginal witness requirement
Scribe not to equated with original witness
2015 SCMR 1044
PLD 2011 SC 241
2014 CLC 1745
Art 129. E
2004 SCMR 964
2010 SCMR 583
Beneficiary of document
Burden to prove
2000 SCMR 1647
2009 XLR 414
Court witness
Documentary evidence
Exhibition and DE exhibition
2010 YLR 619
1971 PCr.LJ 609
I-D card
2011 SCMR 837
Private document tendering off
Registered documents
1993 SCMR 462
Secondary evidence
1986 MLD 1500
2004 YLR 1113
Written agreement excludes oral
1986 CLC 770
1988 SCMR 753
2001 CLC 1332
2002 YLR 2653
2003 YLR 1126
2005 MLD 646
PLD 2004 SC 860
2011 SCMR 837
Estoppel
PLD 2015 SC 212
Evidence discussion
PLD 2001 LAH 495
Evidence meaning of
PLD 1994 SC 501
Exhibition of documents
Photocopy
1996 SCMR 1329
Expert evidence
Evidentiary value
1971 PCR.LJ 918
2010 PCR.LJ 1832
2015 SCMR 284
How a document is proved
PLJ 2002 LAH 1982
Id card probative value of
1991 SCMR 840
2011 SCMR 837
Issues
1994 CLC 1280
Oral evidence
2000 MLD 1653
Pleadings
1991 CLC 1937
PLD 2010 SC 965
Separate written statements
Private documents
1990 MLD 1934
1994 SCMR 1945
1996 MLD 1819
2004 YLR 1841
PLD 1973 SC 160
PLD 1993 LAH 303
Public documents
2002 CLC 518 C
Roznamcha of patwari
1999 YLR 1979
Re examination of witness
2005 SCMR 152
Report of FSL
2004 SCMR 1859
2013 CLC 1171
Requirement of two witness art. 79
2003 YLR 673
PLD 1996 SC 256
Right to cross examination
Cross examination on his own witness
1998 CLC 1148
Roznamcha
2003 YLR 1126
Secondary evidence
2000 MLD 1653
2004 YLR 1113
Standard to prove
Discrepancies in statements
Documents not produced in evidence
Question of fact alleged but not controverted
Registration ACT
Sec 27/A
1993 CLC 2073
1994 MLD 1864
AIR 1960 PATNA 470
AIR 1985 MADHA PARDHESH 12
NLR 1994 CIVIL 482
NLR 1995 CIVIL 209
PLD 1996 LAH 86
PLJ 1994 QUETTA 4 DB
Sec 47
2002 SCMR 1821
2011 SCMR 794
PLD 2003 SC 818
Sec 71
1993 CLC 2073
1994 MLD 1864
AIR 1985
MADHYA PARDESH 12
NLR 1995 CIVIL 209
PLJ 1994 QUETTA 4DB
Rehabilitation act 1956
Land once allotted can not be settled in compensation pool
2013 SCMR 1558
Rejection of Plaint
Preemption on point of court fee
1985 CLC 275
Rendition of accounts
Rent Restriction Ordinance
Co owner filing of petition
2002 SCMR 429
2014 CLC 1242
2014 YLR 161 RENT
Sec 08
2013 SCMR 1520
Fine is liable to be recovered in rent
PLD 2009 SC 71
Report of FSL
Restoration. Dismiss in default
When fixed for interlocutory application fixed for interim application
1992 SCMR 707
Once the suit is restored all orders become alive
Return of plaint
2011 SCMR 806 Banking Court
Review
2008 SCMR 554
2009 SCMR 394
PLD 2007 SC 121
Revision petition
Dismissed for non-prosecution
PLD 2000 SC 820
Sale
Sale to minor
2011 SCMR 837
Sale with consideration
2015 CLC 994
Section 91 & 92 CpC
Permission is not necessary
PLD 2016 SIND 26
2008 CLC 1411
2009 SCMR 574
2010 MLD 1714
Simplifier suit for possession
PLD 2013 LAH 513
Specific performance
Oral agreement to sell
Time when essence of
PLJ 2003 SC 309
Stamp Act
Stamp vendor
2012 PCR. LJ 255
Suit against dead defendant
2003 SCMR 464
Suit valuation ACT
Summons
TPA ACT
Transfer by ostensible owner
PLD 2013 LAH 517
Waiver
Withdrawal of suit
Extension of time after withdraw of first suit is not permissible
2014 CLC 1662
Firstly submitted then retracted
2005 CLC 1101
2013 CLC 1246
Limitation for filing fresh
2011 SCMR 345
Partition suit
PLD 2003 SC 818
2013 SCMR 464
Writ jurisdiction
Writ against the order of provisional court
2014 CLC 1581/1585
PLD 1996 LAH 672
PLD 2013 SC 255
7 rule 11
Dismissed
Agreement to sell declared forged by handwriting expert
2016 SCMR 192
Applicability in application U/s 12/2 CpC
2008 CLC 164
Partial or piecemeal rejection
PLD 2016 SINDH 426
Granted
12(2) CpC
Decree obtained without pleading party
2015 CLC 1428
Forum
1992 SCMR 241
PLD 2013 SC 478
PLD 2016 SC 358
PLD 2015 PESH 39
Framing of issue
2015 SCMR 1708
2013 MLD 1309
2012 CLC 1621
2011 YLR 2614
2006 YLR 677
Time for filing application 12/2
2016 YLR 452
PLD 2015 LAH 220
2015 CLC 183
2008 CLC 164
Treating application under order IX rule 13
2014 C L C 914
Contra
2014 SCMR 914
1987 SCMR 1440
17(3) CpC
1985 SCMR 585
2006 CLC 1680
2006 MLD 1577
2007 MLD 1072
2008 CLC 252
2008 SCMR 942
2008 SCMR 1335
SUPREME COURT ON LAW OF ACQUITTAL
2012 SCMR 89
Delay in F.I.R.---Conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C. and sentences of death awarded by Trial Court was set aside by High Court and accused was acquitted---Validity---Delay of nine hours in lodging F.I.R. and motive
2012 SCMR 82
Trial Court convicted both the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced one to death while the other to imprisonment for life---High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted both the accused---Three witnesses who
2012 PLD 179 SC
Finding of guilt or innocence by police at investigation stage was not a finding in trial culminating in conviction or acquittal and principle of double jeopardy could not be invoked by accused---Even if when an
2011 SCMR 1292 (Diyat paid)
Accused had deposited Diyat amount in the court in the shape of Defence Saving Certificates in the names of the three minor legal heirs of the deceased---Major legal heirs of the deceased on the basis of the
2011 SCMR 534
Disciplinary proceedings---acquittal in criminal case---Effect---Such acquittal would not be an embargo against disciplinary proceedings.
2011 SCMR 484
Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee after his acquittal in criminal case---Validity--Criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings were not synonymous or interchangeable for having distinct
2011 PLD 554
Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is most narrow and limited---Principles and guidelines to be adhered to by the courts in appeal against acquittal stated.
2011 PLC 808
Compulsory retirement---Absence from duty--acquittal from criminal charge---Civil servant was removed from service on the allegation of his wilful absence from duty---Plea raised by civil servant was that his absence
2010 SCMR 1785
Ss. 265-K & 561-A--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203F(2B)---Appeal against acquittal of accused under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. by Federal Shariat Court---Evidence, both oral and documentary, was available on
2010 SCMR 1604
Appeal against acquittal ---Principles---Considerations for deciding the appeal against acquittal and conviction are different---Judgment of acquittal cannot be upset if a different opinion can be formed on
2010 SCMR 491
Attempt to Qatl-i-amd---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal against acquittal ---Appraisal of evidence---Complaint lodged by the complainant petitioner was not only an afterthought, but also appeared
2010 SCMR 222
S. 417--Appeal against acquittal ---Interference by Appellate Court---Principles---Appellate Court would not interfere with acquittal of accused merely because on reappraisal of evidence it comes to a conclusion
2010 PLD 632
Appeal against acquittal ---Appreciation of evidence---Difference of opinion---Mere difference of opinion regarding appreciation of evidence is not a good ground for setting aside an acquittal .
2009 SCMR 803
S 417---Appeal against acquittal ---Presumption---Double presumption of innocence is attached to the order of acquittal passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction---Superior Courts do not interfere with such order
2009 SCMR 569
Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.423 & 439---Reappraisal of evidence---Convertingacquittal into conviction---Revisional jurisdiction---Condonation of delay---Division Bench of High
2009 PLD 709 SC
Ss. 302, 342 & 365---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(2)(a)---High Court had set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and awarded death sentence to the accused---Scope of appeal to
2008 SCMR 807
Bail does not mean acquittal of accused but only change of custody from Government agencies to the sureties, who on furnishing bonds take responsibility to produce the accused whenever and wherever he is required to be produced.
2008 SCMR 1352
S. 302(b)-Appreciation of evidence---Motive---Principles---Motive being not an essential component of crime, the weakness or absence of motive is not a factor to be essentially considered for the purpose of
2007 SCMR 1017
Ss. 439 & 417---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Criminal revision petitions against acquittalwere dismissed by the High Court, as being incompetent---Contention of the petitioner/State was that even
2007 SCMR 846
S. 10(4)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.203DD(2) proviso & 203F(2B)-Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention of accused that
2007 PLD 637 SC
----Art. 185(3)---Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Petitions in criminal matters, .decision of--Principles---Different para-meters/ principles have been prescribed by Supreme Court for deciding criminal
2007 PLD 85 SC
---Ss. 32, 33 & 36---Police Rules 1934, Vol. III, Chapter XXII, Rule 22.16---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Case property---Re-examination of confiscated goods---Scope---High Court, in the present
2007 SCMR 1417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/149, 307/149 & 148---Appeal against acquittal ---Supreme Court although is slow in reversing orders of acquittal , yet interference is required when reasons for acquittal are
2007 SCMR 1404
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--- Appeal against acquittal ---Only piece of evidence against the accused was retracted judicial confession which even according to High Court was not corroborated by any
2006 SCMR 839
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---F.I.R. lodged against the accused had been quashed by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and the Intra-Court appeal filed by the complainant against
2006 SCMR 373
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.190---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---No supplementary challan was submitted for the offences under Ss.212 & 120-B/34, P.P.C. against the accused respondents
2006 SCMR 231
Ss. 365-A/114, 302(b)/34 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7(a), 7(b) & 6(2)(a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal against acquittal of accused by High Court---Writing of the
2006 PLD 465 SC
S. 10(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 187, 203-DD & 203-F(2B)---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence---Enhancement---Victim, a minor girl of 12/13 years was forcibly taken to fruit garden adjacent to her
2006 PLD 61 SC
S. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---No acquittal on technicalities---Courts in such like cases are supposed to dispose of the matter with dynamic approach, instead of acquitting the drug paddlers on technicalities.
2006 PLD 53 SC
Ss. 396, 412, 309, 310, 338-E & 338-F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.187 & 185(3)---Compounding an offence by Court which is non-compoundable in
2006 PLD 51 SC
S. 561-A---Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts)'Act (XV of 1975), 5.7---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Order of acquittal ---Petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. against an order of
2006 SCMR 1653
Rr. 3(b)(c) & 4(b)(iii)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Removal from service---Misconduct and embezzlement, charges of---Civil servant found to be guilty
2006 SCMR 1605 (same charges)
S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.221, 222 & 223---Joint charge---acquittal of one accused and conviction of other---Validity---On exactly the same evidence and in view of joint charge, it is not
2005 SCMR 1342
Ss. 249-A & 345 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/452---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Reappraisal of evidence---Compounding of offence---Procedure---Compromise during bail proceedings---
2005 SCMR 1020
R. 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Departmental proceedings---acquittal by Criminal Court---Effect---Time barred petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court---Failure to give any justification of
2005 SCMR 824 (appeal against acquittal accepted)
Rr. 3, 4, 5 & 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Dismissal from service---Charges of corruption---acquittal of civil servant from criminal case---Subsequent dispensation with regular inquiry
2005 SCMR 1599
S. 249-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-High Court had found that acquittal of accused under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. was not proper on the ground that a civil suit pertaining to the same transaction was
2005 SCMR 1544
Ss. 249-A & 265-K---Appeal against acquittal ---Appeal against acquittal of accused under S.249-A or S.265-K, Cr.P.C. and against his acquittal after trial---Principles---In appeal or revisional proceedings, the
2004 SCMR 540
Acquittal of civil servant in criminal trial- --Departmental proceedings, initiation of---Scope---No bar to proceed departmentally against any civil servant even after his acquittal , as departmental disciplinary
2004 PSC 755 SC (Service Case)
R.6(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Dismissal from service---acquittal m criminal case---Criminal charge and departmental proceedings---Scope and effect entirely different- --Criminal case was
2004 SCMR 1122 (time barred appeal)
Art. 185(3)---Appeal against acquittal ---Petition was barred by 67 days ---Condonation of delay was sought on the ground that the complainant had no knowledge about the decision of the High Court--Explanation offered
2003 SCMR 698 (retrial)
S.439(4)---Revision against acquittal ---Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to convert findings ofacquittal into conviction---If revisional Court came to the conclusion that impugned order was not sustainable in eye
2003 SCMR 678 (Delay in filing departmental appeal)
---R.7---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.4(1)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Removal from service for absence from duty---Departmental appeal---Delay, condonation of
2002 PLD 687 (private complaint)
Ss. 204, 265-K & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Third complaint---Issue of process---First complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed for non-prosecution while second complaint was
2001 SCMR 789
Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 ----R.4---Proceedings in criminal case as well as before Departmental Authorities against civil servant---acquittal in criminal cases does not debar the
2000 PLD 795 SC
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss. 3, 10 & 12---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.265-A to 265-N & 342---Allegation of corruption and corrupt practices--Reference---Trial---Admissibility of
1999 PLD 102 SC
S. 249-A---acquittal of accused---Scope---Magistrate is given power under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. to acquit accused person at any stage of the case, if after hearing prosecutor and accused and for reasons to be recorded, he
1998 SCMR 1840
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 249-A---Power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage---Scope---No impediment exists in the way of Trial Court to acquit the accused at any stage of the case after or prior
2012 SCMR 89
Delay in F.I.R.---Conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C. and sentences of death awarded by Trial Court was set aside by High Court and accused was acquitted---Validity---Delay of nine hours in lodging F.I.R. and motive
2012 SCMR 82
Trial Court convicted both the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced one to death while the other to imprisonment for life---High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted both the accused---Three witnesses who
2012 PLD 179 SC
Finding of guilt or innocence by police at investigation stage was not a finding in trial culminating in conviction or acquittal and principle of double jeopardy could not be invoked by accused---Even if when an
2011 SCMR 1292 (Diyat paid)
Accused had deposited Diyat amount in the court in the shape of Defence Saving Certificates in the names of the three minor legal heirs of the deceased---Major legal heirs of the deceased on the basis of the
2011 SCMR 534
Disciplinary proceedings---acquittal in criminal case---Effect---Such acquittal would not be an embargo against disciplinary proceedings.
2011 SCMR 484
Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee after his acquittal in criminal case---Validity--Criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings were not synonymous or interchangeable for having distinct
2011 PLD 554
Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is most narrow and limited---Principles and guidelines to be adhered to by the courts in appeal against acquittal stated.
2011 PLC 808
Compulsory retirement---Absence from duty--acquittal from criminal charge---Civil servant was removed from service on the allegation of his wilful absence from duty---Plea raised by civil servant was that his absence
2010 SCMR 1785
Ss. 265-K & 561-A--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203F(2B)---Appeal against acquittal of accused under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. by Federal Shariat Court---Evidence, both oral and documentary, was available on
2010 SCMR 1604
Appeal against acquittal ---Principles---Considerations for deciding the appeal against acquittal and conviction are different---Judgment of acquittal cannot be upset if a different opinion can be formed on
2010 SCMR 491
Attempt to Qatl-i-amd---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal against acquittal ---Appraisal of evidence---Complaint lodged by the complainant petitioner was not only an afterthought, but also appeared
2010 SCMR 222
S. 417--Appeal against acquittal ---Interference by Appellate Court---Principles---Appellate Court would not interfere with acquittal of accused merely because on reappraisal of evidence it comes to a conclusion
2010 PLD 632
Appeal against acquittal ---Appreciation of evidence---Difference of opinion---Mere difference of opinion regarding appreciation of evidence is not a good ground for setting aside an acquittal .
2009 SCMR 803
S 417---Appeal against acquittal ---Presumption---Double presumption of innocence is attached to the order of acquittal passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction---Superior Courts do not interfere with such order
2009 SCMR 569
Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.423 & 439---Reappraisal of evidence---Convertingacquittal into conviction---Revisional jurisdiction---Condonation of delay---Division Bench of High
2009 PLD 709 SC
Ss. 302, 342 & 365---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(2)(a)---High Court had set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and awarded death sentence to the accused---Scope of appeal to
2008 SCMR 807
Bail does not mean acquittal of accused but only change of custody from Government agencies to the sureties, who on furnishing bonds take responsibility to produce the accused whenever and wherever he is required to be produced.
2008 SCMR 1352
S. 302(b)-Appreciation of evidence---Motive---Principles---Motive being not an essential component of crime, the weakness or absence of motive is not a factor to be essentially considered for the purpose of
2007 SCMR 1017
Ss. 439 & 417---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Criminal revision petitions against acquittalwere dismissed by the High Court, as being incompetent---Contention of the petitioner/State was that even
2007 SCMR 846
S. 10(4)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.203DD(2) proviso & 203F(2B)-Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention of accused that
2007 PLD 637 SC
----Art. 185(3)---Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Petitions in criminal matters, .decision of--Principles---Different para-meters/ principles have been prescribed by Supreme Court for deciding criminal
2007 PLD 85 SC
---Ss. 32, 33 & 36---Police Rules 1934, Vol. III, Chapter XXII, Rule 22.16---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Case property---Re-examination of confiscated goods---Scope---High Court, in the present
2007 SCMR 1417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/149, 307/149 & 148---Appeal against acquittal ---Supreme Court although is slow in reversing orders of acquittal , yet interference is required when reasons for acquittal are
2007 SCMR 1404
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--- Appeal against acquittal ---Only piece of evidence against the accused was retracted judicial confession which even according to High Court was not corroborated by any
2006 SCMR 839
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---F.I.R. lodged against the accused had been quashed by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and the Intra-Court appeal filed by the complainant against
2006 SCMR 373
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.190---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---No supplementary challan was submitted for the offences under Ss.212 & 120-B/34, P.P.C. against the accused respondents
2006 SCMR 231
Ss. 365-A/114, 302(b)/34 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7(a), 7(b) & 6(2)(a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal against acquittal of accused by High Court---Writing of the
2006 PLD 465 SC
S. 10(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 187, 203-DD & 203-F(2B)---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence---Enhancement---Victim, a minor girl of 12/13 years was forcibly taken to fruit garden adjacent to her
2006 PLD 61 SC
S. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---No acquittal on technicalities---Courts in such like cases are supposed to dispose of the matter with dynamic approach, instead of acquitting the drug paddlers on technicalities.
2006 PLD 53 SC
Ss. 396, 412, 309, 310, 338-E & 338-F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.187 & 185(3)---Compounding an offence by Court which is non-compoundable in
2006 PLD 51 SC
S. 561-A---Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts)'Act (XV of 1975), 5.7---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Order of acquittal ---Petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. against an order of
2006 SCMR 1653
Rr. 3(b)(c) & 4(b)(iii)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Removal from service---Misconduct and embezzlement, charges of---Civil servant found to be guilty
2006 SCMR 1605 (same charges)
S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.221, 222 & 223---Joint charge---acquittal of one accused and conviction of other---Validity---On exactly the same evidence and in view of joint charge, it is not
2005 SCMR 1342
Ss. 249-A & 345 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/452---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Reappraisal of evidence---Compounding of offence---Procedure---Compromise during bail proceedings---
2005 SCMR 1020
R. 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Departmental proceedings---acquittal by Criminal Court---Effect---Time barred petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court---Failure to give any justification of
2005 SCMR 824 (appeal against acquittal accepted)
Rr. 3, 4, 5 & 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Dismissal from service---Charges of corruption---acquittal of civil servant from criminal case---Subsequent dispensation with regular inquiry
2005 SCMR 1599
S. 249-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-High Court had found that acquittal of accused under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. was not proper on the ground that a civil suit pertaining to the same transaction was
2005 SCMR 1544
Ss. 249-A & 265-K---Appeal against acquittal ---Appeal against acquittal of accused under S.249-A or S.265-K, Cr.P.C. and against his acquittal after trial---Principles---In appeal or revisional proceedings, the
2004 SCMR 540
Acquittal of civil servant in criminal trial- --Departmental proceedings, initiation of---Scope---No bar to proceed departmentally against any civil servant even after his acquittal , as departmental disciplinary
2004 PSC 755 SC (Service Case)
R.6(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Dismissal from service---acquittal m criminal case---Criminal charge and departmental proceedings---Scope and effect entirely different- --Criminal case was
2004 SCMR 1122 (time barred appeal)
Art. 185(3)---Appeal against acquittal ---Petition was barred by 67 days ---Condonation of delay was sought on the ground that the complainant had no knowledge about the decision of the High Court--Explanation offered
2003 SCMR 698 (retrial)
S.439(4)---Revision against acquittal ---Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to convert findings ofacquittal into conviction---If revisional Court came to the conclusion that impugned order was not sustainable in eye
2003 SCMR 678 (Delay in filing departmental appeal)
---R.7---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.4(1)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Removal from service for absence from duty---Departmental appeal---Delay, condonation of
2002 PLD 687 (private complaint)
Ss. 204, 265-K & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Third complaint---Issue of process---First complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed for non-prosecution while second complaint was
2001 SCMR 789
Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 ----R.4---Proceedings in criminal case as well as before Departmental Authorities against civil servant---acquittal in criminal cases does not debar the
2000 PLD 795 SC
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss. 3, 10 & 12---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.265-A to 265-N & 342---Allegation of corruption and corrupt practices--Reference---Trial---Admissibility of
1999 PLD 102 SC
S. 249-A---acquittal of accused---Scope---Magistrate is given power under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. to acquit accused person at any stage of the case, if after hearing prosecutor and accused and for reasons to be recorded, he
1998 SCMR 1840
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 249-A---Power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage---Scope---No impediment exists in the way of Trial Court to acquit the accused at any stage of the case after or prior
STATUS DEFINITION OF CASES BEFORE
HIGH COURT
Adjourned ; Court just adjourned (postponed) the case for some reasons.
Adjourned Without Directions ;Case discharged for some reasons without any directions
Admit / Notice; Court admitted (accepted) the case or its application and thereafter ordered to issue Notice to some Parties.
Appln Disposed of; An application of the Case disposed of (decided). The main case remains undecided.
Arguments Heard/Filed ; Arguments Heard/Filed
Board Discharged; All the remaining cases (that were not heard by the Court yet) discharged, will not be heard later on the same date.
Board Heard; All the cases (that were fixed for hearing) got heard by the Court.
Board Transferred; All the remaining cases (that were not heard by the Court yet) transferred to some other Court.
Case Dismissed; Case heard by the Court, thereafter dismissed the case.
Case Restored; Case Restored.
Case/Petition allowed; Case/Petition allowed
Comments Filed; Comments Filed
Discharged; Case discharged for some reasons, will not be heard later on the same date.
Ex-Party
Heard Case heard by the Court.
Heard and Adjourned; Court heard the case fully, thereafter adjourned (postponed) the case.
Heard and Reserved; Case heard and its decision is reserved for some reasons, decision will be announced later.
Hearing in progress ;Case is being proceeded just now in the Court. If Court hours are over and this Status is still intact then the Court Staff has forgotten to change it.
Kept Aside; Case is kept aside for some time for some reasons, it may or may not be heard later.
Main Case Disposed of; Main case disposed of (decided).
Next Waiting; It is the Next Case which will be proceeded by the Court after the Case which is just proceeding in the Court. If Court hours are over and this Status is still intact then the Court Staff has forgotten to change it.
Not Before; Ordered as Not Before
Notice; Court ordered to issue Notice to some Parties.
Partly Heard & Adjourned; Court heard the case partially, thereafter adjourned (postponed) the case.
Transferred; Case Transferred to some other Court for some reasons.
Wrongly Fixed The Case was wrongly fixed in the Court due to some mistake by the concerned branch.
Adjourned ; Court just adjourned (postponed) the case for some reasons.
Adjourned Without Directions ;Case discharged for some reasons without any directions
Admit / Notice; Court admitted (accepted) the case or its application and thereafter ordered to issue Notice to some Parties.
Appln Disposed of; An application of the Case disposed of (decided). The main case remains undecided.
Arguments Heard/Filed ; Arguments Heard/Filed
Board Discharged; All the remaining cases (that were not heard by the Court yet) discharged, will not be heard later on the same date.
Board Heard; All the cases (that were fixed for hearing) got heard by the Court.
Board Transferred; All the remaining cases (that were not heard by the Court yet) transferred to some other Court.
Case Dismissed; Case heard by the Court, thereafter dismissed the case.
Case Restored; Case Restored.
Case/Petition allowed; Case/Petition allowed
Comments Filed; Comments Filed
Discharged; Case discharged for some reasons, will not be heard later on the same date.
Ex-Party
Heard Case heard by the Court.
Heard and Adjourned; Court heard the case fully, thereafter adjourned (postponed) the case.
Heard and Reserved; Case heard and its decision is reserved for some reasons, decision will be announced later.
Hearing in progress ;Case is being proceeded just now in the Court. If Court hours are over and this Status is still intact then the Court Staff has forgotten to change it.
Kept Aside; Case is kept aside for some time for some reasons, it may or may not be heard later.
Main Case Disposed of; Main case disposed of (decided).
Next Waiting; It is the Next Case which will be proceeded by the Court after the Case which is just proceeding in the Court. If Court hours are over and this Status is still intact then the Court Staff has forgotten to change it.
Not Before; Ordered as Not Before
Notice; Court ordered to issue Notice to some Parties.
Partly Heard & Adjourned; Court heard the case partially, thereafter adjourned (postponed) the case.
Transferred; Case Transferred to some other Court for some reasons.
Wrongly Fixed The Case was wrongly fixed in the Court due to some mistake by the concerned branch.
PLD 1959 SC 9
1993 SCMR 1463
2009 SCMR 688
Suit for declaration along with perpetual injunction is competent against co-sharer.
1993 SCMR 1463
2009 SCMR 688
Suit for declaration along with perpetual injunction is competent against co-sharer.
Location
Telephone
Address
A
78-District Courts Khanewal
Khanewal
54000
No comments:
Post a Comment