Reported Cases

---Court has been empowered under O.VI, R.17 C.P.C. to allow either party to alter or amend pleadings at any stage of proceedings in the manner provided, for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between parties.

---Principle---No limitation period has been provided in law for filing of application under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C.---Court has been empowered under O.VI, R.17 C.P.C. to allow either party to alter or amend pleadings at any stage of proceedings in the manner provided, for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between parties.

Answer to the question whether any such business of Sheesha or smoking gadgets pipes wrapper is permissible where an individual can use the specific space/place for the purposes of smoking can only be settled in terms of the powers contained in S. 17 of the Prohibition of Smoking and Protection of Non-Smokers Health Ordinance, 2002---High Court directed the Federal Government to notify the rules within six months---Chief Commissioner was directed to visit all those Sheesha bars and public places and stop the smoking activities in accordance with law till the rules were notified

----Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154---Petition under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C.---Police report requisitioned by Justice of Peace---Where a Justice of Peace calls for a police report, he cannot ordinarily brush aside the same---In case he proposes to give his opinion contrary to the police report he is supposed to furnish tangible reasons for not relying upon the said report.

---Unwitnessed Crime---- Offence did not attract non-prohibitory clause of Sec. 497 Cr.P.C. ---BAIL GRANTED.

Non-production of postman by Plaintiff & production of photocopy of talb-i-ishhad;
it is inadmissible in evidence therefore the Revision petition was dismissed in the circumstances.

For setting aside of Ex-parte Decree is 30 days.
Defendants submitted their written statement but thereafter absented themselves from the Court and ex parte decree was passed. High Court declined to interfere in the findings rendered by the Revisional Court.

Status of disputed items could not be determined by Trial Court exercising Jurisdiction under Succession Act, 1925 appropriate remedy would be to approach Civil Court for determination status of disputed items.

Extra-ordinary care and caution is legally required to be taken in execution of the sale deed when it involves a Pardanasheen lady.

Attorney cannot utilize the powers conferred upon him to transfer the property to himself or to his kith and kin without special and specific consent and permission of the principal.

Collector without constituting a Committee to re-assess the land again, had relied on the one-year average rate HELD----The Collector should not remain stuck to the one-year average without taking into consideration the present and future potential of the land acquired.

Where property was divided through private partition, such property would no more be joint property---Pre-emption was a right of substitution, once it was established that pre-emptor was no more co-owner and no contiguity existed, suit would not be maintainable.

Complainant-victim was a virgin lady and according to medical evidence she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Magistrate allowing bail to accused for an offence under S. 376, P.P.C. according to Schedule-II, Column No. 8, Cr.P.C., said offence was triable by a Court of Session-Only function of the Magistrate after the receipt of report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. was to transmit the challan to the Court of competent jurisdiction/Sessions Court.

Entry in column of ownership would prevail over column of cultivation---Entry in column of cultivation would prevail over column of lagan---Person entered as tenant-at-will in column of cultivation, for being a tenant, could not claim adverse possession.

Plaintiff(wife) was not entitled to recover amount of dower as defendant (husband) had alienated half of the share of his property in favor of the plaintiff--- Validity---Defendant had failed to establish that 1/2 share of his house, which originally belonged to his father and which he had agreed to transfer in the name of the plaintiff in lieu of dower amount, had been transferred by him in favor of the plaintiff---Defendant could not produce on record any document in support of his claim---Leave petition was dismissed.

Transfer of land by deceased through mutations of gift and sale in favor of his two daughters excluding his third daughter from inheritance---Plaintiff's plea was that such mutations were the result of fraud and misrepresentation which they had failed to discharge initial onus to prove misrepresentation and fraud---Defendant had proved gift deed by producing its scribe and attesting witnesses. Suit was dismissed for want of proof in circumstances.

Both the gift and sale mutations were attested during the life time of the original owner by the Revenue Officer in "Jalsa Aam". Suits were filed by the plaintiff after many years of attestation of deeds and even much later than the date of death of executant/original owner. Plaintiffs could get no more than what the original owner had left behind for his other legal representatives at the time of opening of his succession.

Change in nature of land and disputed boundaries was alleged based on verbal accusations. HELD-- Court cannot create evidence in favor of plaintiff by appointment of Local Commission when plaintiff himself not made any efforts to prove his case beyond verbal contentions.

Defendants having clearly declared that they had neither interfered in the suit property nor they intended to do so, such a bald and unreserved statement of defendants should have pacified the plaintiff-----Petitioner could proceed against defendants if any encroachment in the suit property was ever made by them------No cause of action there having accrued to plaintiff to institute suit, both courts below had rightly applied their mind to reject the plaint.

Land on main road side had lot of potential in terms of commercial as well as residential value. After ascertainment of real market value, compensation of acquired land should have been fixed more than market price---High Court, remanded case to Referee Court with direction to ascertain market value of acquired land.

Complaint filed by Police against Petitioner under S.182, P.P.C. was not competent as it was contrary to mandatory provisions of S.195, Cr.P.C. under which any offence punishable under Ss. 172 to 188, P.P.C. would be taken cognizance of only when complaint was made in writing by public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he was subordinate----When a thing was required to be done by law in a particular manner it should be done in that manner or not at all.

Party could not make a departure from its pleadings and was bound by the same.

Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of unregistered deeds executed in her favor Plaintiff neither produced marginal witnesses of the deeds, nor the scribe. Plaintiff was required to prove execution of documents in accordance with law by producing marginal witnesses and scribe of the deeds.

Essential condition of Sale is Proof of payment of some price in cash for thing sold is necessary. According to section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, it is to be proved that price/consideration has been paid to the owner.

Father of husband had agreed to pay dower amount through agreement deed after filing of criminal case by plaintiff (wife) in respect of land entered in dower deed, but was not in existence at all. Defendant in written statement had given evasive answer to relevant para of plaint. Evidence had been thrashed by Courts below, which being factual matters did not need interference---High Court dismissed Constitutional petitioner in limine.

Trial Court while passing ex parte decree had overlooked its earlier order directing issuance of notice to defendants and their counsel, which had neither been issued nor served upon them. Ex-parte decree passed without notice to defendant-¬appellant and without directing ex parte proceedings against him, was nullity in eyes of law.

Defendant claimed to be purchaser of suit-land through unregistered sale-deed. ¬Such sale-deed was not acted upon in Revenue Record & after his death inheritance mutation was attested in their favor. Defendant got sale mutation attested in his favor which was subsequently challenged by Plaintiff.

Rejection of nomination papers was a penalty, which could only be imposed, if an offence was committed or law violated Section 14 of the Act would apply, when false statements had been made with mens rea, but not otherwise Mere existence of defect in nomination paper not of substantial nature and defect, which could be remedied, should not be made ground for rejection of nomination papers Returning Officers could ask respondents to file fresh "Goshwara Malkiat" Election Tribunal dismissed appeals in circumstances.

Sale consideration of the land entered in the mutation was Rs.10,000 but the vendee contested the suit to have purchased the suit-land for a consideration of Rs.83,000---Trial Court, on assessment of evidence decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff on payment of Rs.10,000 against the vendee ---Appellate Court enhanced the market value of the suit-land to Rs.83,000---Validity---Pre-emptor had to shoulder the responsibility of proving the payment of consideration of sale of the property---Market value was to be determined on the factors i.e. location, fertility etc.

Filing of civil suit instead of execution petition---High Court advised that the appellant could move proper application for the implementation of earlier order of High Court with an application for condonation of delay caused due to proceedings before wrong forum under misconception or wrong advice.

Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition whereas the Appellate Court allowed the same ---- Plea raised by the tenant was that the Appellate Court had set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller without discussing the evidence available on record----Where the Lower Appellate Court without discussing the facts available on record and without giving reasons for his findings and without applying his judicious mind passed the judgment, such judgment was arbitrary and without lawful authority which was set aside by High Court.

Plaintiff claimed right of easement on the ground that the defendants had no right to block the water channel which was passing through the land owned by the defendants, as the orchard of the plaintiff was being irrigated by the water channel Validity Where the plaintiff had alternate access to his orchard and he could use the same at his leisure, the right of easement had rightly been declined to the plaintiff.

F.I.R. was delayed by thirteen days and the same did not contain any reference to the Jirga having been convened in the case or any undertaking of the accused to pay the amount. Matter between the parties appeared to be of civil nature and certain documents admittedly were not available on the file of the Trial Court Finding of acquittal was based on correct appreciation of evidence by lower Court. Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.

Delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. had remained unexplained Confessional statement allegedly made by accused was not recorded in accordance with law and essential formalities before recording the same were not duly observed Cogent and convincing reasons had been given by the Trial Court for acquitting the accused Revision petition against acquittal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.

Consideration for the grant of bail and for cancellation of bail was absolutely different Once an accused had been released on bail, his liberty could not be interfered with lightly. No extraordinary circumstances had been pointed out which could constitute an impediment in the way of granting bail to the accused Order of Court below granting bail to the accused being flawless, could not be interfered with.

Opium recovered from the accused was not produced in the Trial Court Burden was on the prosecution to positively establish on the destruction, of the case property which was not discharged by the testimony of two prosecution witnesses—¬No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the same - -Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

Claim for custody of minor sons by father Father filed suit against mother for obtaining custody of his minor sons after divorcing her Minors were residing with mother and studying in an educational institution of high repute Petitioner had contracted second marriage and was living happily with second wife ¬Effect If the mother of the minor sons had contracted second marriage, petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court for appropriate relief.

Alternate path available to the petitioners-----Where joint properties of the petitioners touched the main road, they themselves could make arrangements of their approach from the main road No flaw in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below had been found to make a case for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Striking off defense of defendants under O17 R3 upon non-filing of written statements

Where gift deed was not read ever and explained to such lady, execution of such deed would not be said to have been consciously executed.

Offences though did not fall in prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., but since accused armed with deadly weapon had entered house of complainant when a woman having no protection of male in house was present, Court could award imprisonment, as well which fell within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.

Occurrence was supported by injured victim, witnesses as well as medical report which had shown that female victim was injured at the skull with sharp edged weapon by accused Accused, in circumstances, could not be shown leniency towards bail Since blow of co accused had not landed do vital part of body of victim, he was entitled to concession of bail.

Entries in Wajib ul Arz reflected unanimous will of the community to which presumption of correctness was attached----Entries in Revenue Record that properties in question were "Khud Kasht" were not supported by other entries in the Record which were recorded as "Dhaka Rakh' and "Dhaka Chiragah" and the same had never been cultivable land Judgment of Appellate Court to that effect being well reasoned and well founded was maintained in circumstances.

Plaintiffs claim to be full owners on basis of being occupancy tenants of land in question. Plaintiffs admittedly were not recorded occupancy tenants of land in question, in revenue papers at the commencement of North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950, therefore, legally they could not be deemed to have become full owners of land in question, by operation of law in terms of Ss.4 & 4-A of the Act.

Gift in question was made by father in favor of his three sons excluding the fourth one Son who had been excluded from gift assailing gift on basis of fraud and undue influence Suit was dismissed and gift was deemed to be valid.

For maturing title through adverse possession it is sine qua non that person making assertion of adverse possession must establish disclaimer of the title which must be notorious and explicit.

Unregistered document could be received in evidence for collateral purposes Execution of document if proved, whether registered or not, would not have material bearing on the merits of the case Such document could be admitted in evidence and also be relied upon to prove any collateral purpose i.e. factum of possession.

Co sharer could not, ordinarily be permitted to alter the nature of joint property, and to put it to different use from the one for which it was intended----Even if defendant/co sharer had been in possession of land in question, still he could not raise construction thereon, without consulting other co sharer or partition of land.

Entitlement of co sharer to construct on joint property. Co sharer could not, ordinarily be permitted to alter the nature of joint property.

Where the pistol and the empty had remained in police custody for sufficiently long time the report of the Fire arms Expert would not be of much evidentiary value and could not be relied upon as the possibility of the substitution of the empty could not be ruled out.

That the Court after hearing the prosecutor and the accused, if considers that the charge is groundless or there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence, may acquit the accused. Trial Court had acted in haste in acquitting the accused u/s 249 A, Cr.P.C: at the very initial stage without affording the complainant any opportunity to prove her allegations against accused Order of acquittal was consequently set aside.

Confession of accused person has to be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole particularly when there is no ocular evidence.

Injuries of complainant more serious than those on accused, but nothing on record to show as to who commenced aggression ---Benefit of doubt regarding their presence at time of occurrence extended to two of accused on same evidence Held, remaining accused also entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.

No cogent evidence to indicate that mother of accused was being beaten by deceased when accused arrived and stabbed him nor plea of self-defense finding corroboration from prosecution evidence --Accused also suffering no injury at all during occurrence negating accused's apprehension of death or any grievous injury at hand of deceased Plea of self-defense held, would not prevail in circumstances.

Versions given by parties in cross cases as well as other material on record silent regarding their own part in incident resulting in death of one person. Both parties condemning each other to have aggressed upon it and evidence as to how whole affair started and which side responsible for starting aggression yet to be adduced at trial Held: A fit case for further enquiry as envisaged by S. 497 (2), Cr. P. C. Bail allowed, in circumstances.