Necessity

Provisions of Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 were self-executory inasmuch as those were not dependent on any further legislative action outside the Act

Provisions of the Act created a right for being considered for regularization which was enforceable by courts without wanting further legislative action; it did not require the crutches of any other rules, bye-laws, policy or notifications for being brought into force.

Respondent had right to support the judgment of Trial Court without filing the cross-objection and he could make oral objection to assail the findings on issues rendered against him.

Consent of a woman is necessary; she cannot be compelled to enter into a marriage contract without her free will and consent

If a girl is married to a person who is not of her choice and girl signs the nikahnama unwillingly by force or fear of her guardian, the same cannot be termed as valid marriage, because guardian's consent is no substitute for the girl's consent.

Reference petition had been filed by the land owners prior to receipt of compensation amount which by itself was protest within the meaning of S. 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

No written protest was mandatory prior to receipt of compensation amount by the land owners

Provisions of S. 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not provide any mechanism for making or lodging such protest at the time or before receiving compensation

Reference could be filed by person who had not accepted the award by a written application to the Collector Land Acquisition for determination of objections to the land acquisition the amount of compensation and the person to whom it was payable

Collector Land Acquisition was bound to invite land owners to put their claims for compensation of their respective interests and objections with regard to measurement of acquired land

Collector Land Acquisition was to serve notice of inquiry to be held under S. 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Provisions of S. 11 of the Act were mandatory in nature and Collector Land Acquisition or Acquisition Officer was responsible for conducting such inquiry

For invoking the penal provision of S. 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the person who was said to have received the amount of compensation without protest would be the one who knew the implication of award and he had a right to claim higher compensation

Protest could be made either in writing or through filing reference within prescribed period of limitation

Claimant might receive the amount of compensation under protest orally, in circumstances

Even reference petition filed by the land owners was sufficient proof of their implied protest against the market price determined by the Collector Land Acquisition

When law did not prescribe any particular mode of protest then the oral protest or reference petition was a valid protest under the law and would be sufficient to entitle the land owners to file reference petition

Market price of acquired land had been assessed and determined by the Collector Land Acquisition on the sole criteria of one year average price which was against the principle of law

Material available on record was also relevant to evaluate the amount of compensation

Civic facilities were available in the vicinity of acquired land

Market price of acquired land had not been properly assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition, in circumstances

Referee Court had rightly determined the market price of the acquired land

Impugned judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence and law on the subject

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applicant during pendency of suit purchased suit property and moved application for impleadment of defendant but same was dismissed

Suit was decreed and sale deed was executed in favour of decree-holder/petitioner

Applicant applied for setting aside of said decree but same was dismissed by the Trial Court

Appellate Court remanded the matter to decide the same after framing of issues and recording evidence of the parties

Validity

Suit was filed on 20-04-1990 and applicant purchased suit property on 19-05-2003

Principle of lis pendens was applicable and applicant could not be impleaded as party in the main suit

Court was not bound to frame issues in each and every case before deciding an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. rather it could decide such application without framing of issues while considering material made available on the record

Mere allegation of fraud and misrepresentation was not sufficient to undo the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction

Party who had asserted fraud and misrepresentation had to bring on record cogent and plausible material in order to substantiate his such plea which was lacking in the present case

Revisional Court had erred in law while setting aside order passed by the Trial Court thus had committed illegality culminating into passing of an order which was perverse and perfunctory

Impugned order could not be allowed to hold the field further

High Court was competent to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in circumstances

Impugned order passed by the Revisional Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Holding of identification parade was not a mandatory requirement as identification test would be essential only if there was doubt regarding identity of accused

Involvement of the accused in the crime could be inferred from the attending circumstances.

Pre-emptor neither produced receipt of acknowledgement-due nor produced the postman, who had served the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad upon the vendee; it was mandatory for the pre-emptor to produce the postman to establish the service of Talb-i-Ishhad in compliance with S.13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act , 1991.

Employer, was bound to give specific notice to employee, regarding the allegations levelled against her, by having not done so, the employer had violated the well acknowledged principle that an act to be done in a particular way could not be allowed to be deviated in any way

Employer was bound to hold independent inquiry, which was not conducted

In the present case, the employer, illegally construed the proceedings conducted on the letter of explanation as those were undertaken pursuant to a formal charge sheet

Non-production of alleged two complaints during the course of evidence, cast serious doubt against their authenticity for the reason that when the documents forming basis of the dispute were not brought on record, the subsequent superstructure raised on the basis thereof, could not be given legal blanket.

Failure of direct evidence was always sufficient to hold a criminal charge as "not proved", but where the direct evidence would remain in the field with test of its being natural and confidence inspiring, then requirement of independent corroboration was only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case.

Accused along with co-accused were charged for the offences that while armed with deadly weapons, made direct firing on police party with intention to commit murder

One police constable was killed during the occurrence

Accused had not been arrested on the spot

Occurrence took place at dark night

Source of light had been mentioned to be the head light of vehicle on account of which police party allegedly identified accused and co-accused

Accused, after their arrest were not put to identification parade nor it was claimed by any of the prosecution witnesses that the accused were known to them previously, in such circumstances, the identification of accused in a formal identification parade was a must

Non-holding of identification parade by the prosecution, in circumstances, was fatal to the prosecution case

Conviction and sentence, passed by Trial Court against accused persons, was set aside and they were acquitted.

Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, dacoity, common intention, kidnapping for ransom

Appreciation of evidence

Identification parade

Necessity

Prosecution case was that accused persons had abducted the complainant, his son and driver

Complainant escaped himself from the custody of accused persons and police succeeded in rescuing the driver after encounter with the accused persons but the culprits had taken away his son and thereafter demanded ransom

Accused persons were not known by the complainant

FIR was lodged against unknown persons

Holding of identification test was essential in the present case

Record showed that identification parade was held jointly and conducted in piece meals but law required and insisted that identification parade of each accused should be conducted separately

Complainant and his son being abductees had participated in the joint identification parade but the third abductee/driver had not participated in the identification parade

Absence of third abductee in the identification parade had not been explained by the prosecution

Complainant had identified the accused persons in first episode of joint identification parade

Son of complainant being abductee had identified the accused persons in the second joint identification parade, which was conducted after more than two months of the first identification parade

Record was silent as to what measures were taken to keep the accused persons away from the access of witness till the second identification parade

Judicial Magistrate who supervised the identification parade had admitted that at the time of identification parade, accused persons had complained that they had been shown to the witnesses at the police station

Magistrate had admitted that dummies were not wearing the same colour dress and were not of same age or height and the features

Mere picking of one up during identification parade was not sufficient unless the witness strengthened such fingering by giving details of the acts, done by such picked up accused during the course of incident

Said circumstances bringing serious clouds over the identification parade

Prosecution failed to establish that the body of accused persons were kept concealed, which created doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case, benefit whereof would be given to the accused persons

Accused persons were acquitted in circumstances, by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Based on said omission and irregularity, adjudicating proceedings initiated by issuance of show-cause notice under S.11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for recovery of adjusted amount of input tax, besides penalty on account of non-production of record and late filing of sales tax returns

Adjudication proceedings culminated on the ex parte basis in passing an order which was challenged before the appellate authority, which instead o f discussing the legal side of the case and replying the query raised before him, upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority, which had been agitated before the Appellate Tribunal

Case being neither a case of assessment of tax on the basis of any short-payment nor non-payment nor of inadmissible input tax credit or refund claim, consumption of jurisdiction under S.11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for recovery of adjusted amount of input tax without issuing show-cause notice under S.11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was illegal and without jurisdiction

If the statute enacted that certain action would be taken in a certain manner and no other manner, such requirement was absolute and negate to attend or non-compliance of such mandate, would invalidate the whole proceedings

Sections 11(2) & 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 were distinct in nature and issuance of separate show-cause notice under said sections were condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction

Section 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 would apply where any person had paid the tax short or had not paid tax due, on supplies made by him or had claimed input tax credit and refund which was not admissible under law; whereas S.11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, could be invoked in case of taxpayer's 'collusion' with the tax officials or on account of 'deliberate act'

Show-cause notice having been issued in the case for recovery of adjusted amount of input tax was completely silent with regard to 'collusion' or 'deliberate act' on the point of the taxpayer, the very acquiring of jurisdiction, in circumstances, was illegal and ab initio void

In the present case, amount of input tax having already been adjusted by the taxpayer, recovery of the same was to be made under S.11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and not under S.11(2)

Any order passed under S.11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, could be equated with an assessment order determining the amount of tax actually payable by taxpayer, and in no way, could be purported to be a judgment for adjudicating any recovery of tax or charge, non-levied or made or had been short levied or had been erroneously refunded or adjusted in its legal semantics and jurisdiction

Show-cause notice issued to the taxpayer had failed to reflect; whether alleged act of adjustment of input tax was the result of collusion or same was a deliberate step to defraud the Government

Onus to prove the allegation of collusion or of a deliberate act, lay on the department

Requisite show-cause notice as required by law had not been served upon the taxpayer, no straight notice for recovery of alleged tax, therefore, could be issued

Impugned show-cause notice had also revealed that same was vague, defective, flawed and legally invalid as it did not contain necessary particulars of the suppliers and detail of invoices etc. nor was the detail of the transactions confronted and failed to meet the foundational legal requirements

Show-cause notice issued without fulfilling mandatory requirements of law, was illegal and without jurisdiction

Consequent orders, were also declared to be illegal, ab initio void and nullity in the eyes of law which were set aside and appeal was accepted.

Contention of defendants was that road in question was open and they never restrained nor were restraining plaintiff from passing through the said path

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Road in question was eleven to fifteen feet wide and plaintiff had right to pass his vehicle from the same

Appellate Court had termed the action of defendants as "public nuisance" but did not direct the concerned Police Station for chalking First Information Report against them for the offence of public nuisance

Appellate Court had failed to differentiate between filing of suit with regard to public nuisance and against infringement of civil right of any sperson

Courts below had not given any finding on the question whether the action of defendants amounted to a public nuisance, an offence prescribed and defined in penal laws or amounted to infringement of civil right of plaintiff

Action of defendants was an action against the civil rights of plaintiff

Suit against any action of any person "for public nuisance" was different from "action of a person amounting to infringement of civil right of any person"

Any individual could file a suit for a right in his favour with regard to public nuisance without obtaining consent of Advocate General

Provisions of S.91 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were discretionary and not mandatory

Action of defendants could not be termed as "public nuisance" rather same amounted to infringement of right of plaintiff

Present suit was maintainable in circumstances

Appellate Court had dismissed the suit as a result of erroneous approach of provisions of S. 91 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were set aside

Local administration was bound to maintain the suit path as a public thoroughfare

Suit of plaintiff was decreed throughout

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Immediate medical examination of the deceased was necessary to corroborate the medical evidence with the ocular testimony of witnesses, who allegedly seen the injuries on the person of the deceased at the time of giving bath to her

After lapse of considerable long period and due to petrification, most of the wounds were not visible

Medical testimony was absolutely in conflict with the ocular evidence

Accused was acquitted, in circumstances, by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court.

Petitioner assailed order of Trial Court by way of which application of appellant for DNA test of the petitioner along with three others except respondent was allowed

Petitioner contended that she had been deprived of her share from the inheritance of her father who contracted three marriages and court had rightly decreed her suit for declaration

Petitioner further submitted that DNA test was a third person opinion and such application was never moved when full-fledged trial was conducted before the civil court

Validity

Parties had to prove their cases at their own and by using tool of court they could not be assisted or helped to create any evidence in their support; when one failed to prove his stance directly, could not be allowed to do the same indirectly

Respondent had not made any effort by way of moving application for DNA test to bring on record any evidence before Trial Court and when Trial Court after thwarting and evaluating evidence brought on record by the parties recorded its findings, all of a sudden, that too, not at the time of filing of appeal, but during pendency of appeal, the respondent moved application for DNA test of the plaintiff along with three others but he kept himself away from that process, which spoke volumes against him as he was also from the blood of the deceased father

While passing the impugned order no consent from the petitioner and others with regard to sending them to the laboratory for DNA test, was obtained by appellate court, which was necessary, therefore, an irregularity was committed by appellate court

When the direct evidence to prove a fact was available in the shape of oral as well as documentary evidence, there was no need to seek expert opinion, which otherwise was a third person opinion and could not undo the direct evidence of the parties

High Court observed that tendency had been noticed that in order to deprive a legal heir from the legacy of deceased propositus, his/her legitimacy was called into question and he/she was dumped to get himself/herself cleaned from that stigma, that too through unskilled experts as any mistake or malpractice committed in the course of DNA test tantamount to stigmatize the child from the rest of his/her life, therefore, such practice could not be allowed to be carried on, especially when the parties enjoyed the liberty of producing direct evidence, oral as well as documentary, which had been done in the present case

Opinion of third person, not related to the parties, could not undo the direct evidence and law did not give a free license to individuals and particularly unscrupulous fathers, to make unlawful assertions and thus to cause harm to children as well as their mothers

Appellate court while passing the impugned order had wrongly construed law on the subject and had reached to a wrong conclusion

Impugned order was set aside, consequent whereof the application for DNA test of the petitioner and three others, filed by respondent stood dismissed

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

Counsel should have a duly executed power of attorney in his favour so as to represent any litigant before any legal forum

Unauthorized person could not address a court

No counsel could represent a client or litigant unless and until he was authorized by execution of power-of-attorney

Neither memorandum of appearance nor power-of-attorney was submitted at the time of filing of application for impleadment of a party in the present case

Such practice could not be endorsed or permitted to carry the day merely on the assumption and presumption that it was an irregularity and curable

No exertion had been made by the applicant to file power-of-attorney or to appear before the court in person or through a special attorney or general attorney for making his better statement in order to rectify the acts done by his counsel retrospectively

Appointment of pleader should be in writing and duly signed by persons(s) who appointed the pleader and such instrument must be before the court

When pleader who filed an application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. was neither authorized through a written instrument i.e. power-of-attorney nor he filed any memorandum of appearance with the undertaking of production of power-of-attorney, said application was not entertainable and was incompetent to proceed on

Impugned orders had been passed beyond jurisdiction which could not be allowed to remain in field

Revisional Court had committed illegality by not applying the correct law

Impugned order passed by the courts below were set aside and application for impleadment of a party was dismissed

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Complainant had not mentioned features of the unknown accused therein, therefore, holding of identification test was essential which was not conducted

In the absence of identification parade, implication of accused by way of supplementary statement could not advance the plea of prosecution to prove the culpability of accused

Conviction and sentences recorded against accused were set aside in circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed suit for possession through pre-emption seeking to pre-empt sale made in favour of defendant(vendee) claiming to have made the required demands/Talbs

Defendant denied the claim on plea that Talbs had not been made in terms of S. 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Trial court decreed the suit, but appellate court reversed the same holding that plaintiffs had failed to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat as one of pre-emptors had not appeared as witness to depose about performance of Talbs

Contention by plaintiffs was that appellate court had misconstrued evidence and misapplied the law

Plea taken by defendant was that making of Talb-i-Muwathibat was a personal act and all pre-emptors had to appear as witness to depose about the Talbs for their suit to succeed

Defendant denied receipt of Talb-i-Ishhad

Validity

Pre-emptor had to prove making of Talb-i-Muwathibat otherwise suit would be dismissed

Making of Talb-i-Muwathibat was condition precedent to fulfil Talb-i-Ishhad and it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to examine postman to prove that he had delivered envelope containing notice of Talb-i-Ishhad to defendant

Plaintiffs examined postman who deposed that his son had delivered the envelope to defendant, but the son was not called as witness which was fatal to the case of plaintiffs

Postman could not delegate his authority to his son

Plaintiffs' witness admitted that postal envelope was not accompanied by any acknowledgment due

Plaintiffs failed to prove delivery of postal envelope in terms of S. 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

High Court dismissed petition for being without merit.

Identification parade was to be held as soon as possible after the recovery of the abductee but no such parade was conducted

In the absence of identification parade, implication of accused could not advance the plea of prosecution to prove the culpability of accused

Conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court against accused persons were set aside in circumstances.

Plot in question, situated in residential area was being used as taxi stand and on complaint of inhabitants of the area, Judicial Magistrate ordered eviction of the plot

Validity

Taxi stand was established on the plot without any legal authority

Inhabitants of the area had stated that taxi stand was causing nuisance in the area and that they were facing hardship with regard to their easement rights

Complaint/grievance of inhabitants of the area being about 'unlawful obstruction' and 'physical discomfort of the inhabitants', even a lawful business or trade could not be allowed to continue at the cost of "physical discomfort of the public"

Cognizance was rightly and properly taken by the Magistrate

Section 133, Cr.P.C., nowhere, required issuance of show-cause notice before passing a 'conditional order', as such an order itself was a show-cause notice

Prima facie, applicant, had no locus standi to occupy the plot which was owned by Revenue Authorities

Applicant who was in illegal occupation of plot in question, his application being devoid of merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Father contended that appellate court had modified the decree of maintenance of his son, so existing execution petition had become infructuous

Family Court proceeded with existing execution petition

Father alleged that the maintenance amount was being illegally deducted being more than the direction of appellate court

Mother contended that so far past maintenance was being recovered which was not touched by the appellate court

Validity

Family Court was competent to award past maintenance of the minor

Petitioner who being father of the minor was duty bound to provide adequate maintenance to his child and in case of default he was also bound to pay past maintenance

Maintenance of a child was an obligation from which father could not escape morally and legally

Appellate court had clarified that order of the Trial Court was modified and there was no need to file a fresh execution application

Contention of father that after modification, the previous execution application had become infructuous, and a fresh execution application ought to be filed was not proper

Decree of appellate court merged into the decree of Trial Court and it was the decree of the appellate court that needed to be executed

Appellate court had only reduced the amount of future maintenance and the amount of past maintenance was not touched by the appellate court

Executing court was fully justified to take steps for recovery of past maintenance from the father

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Complainant had not mentioned features of the unknown accused persons except one, therefore, holding of identification test was essential, which was conducted but not as per requirements of law

Report of identification parade did not disclose the relevant FIR in which report was prepared; particulars of dummies were not provided; numerous cuttings were made in the report, without initial of the author; no verification of the identity of witnesses was on record; identification parade was held in two cases on the same day, in which accused was to be identified; High Court Rules and Orders relating to identification parade were not complied; and author had showed ignorance about the contents of the report

Circumstances established that such report of Identification parade was not a piece of evidence required consideration to impose punishment upon the accused

Accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court.

Family Court decreed the suit partially but Appellate Court remanded the same with the direction to frame issues in the light of pleadings of the contesting parties

Validity

Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 though were not applicable to the proceedings before the Family Court but principles enshrined therein might be invoked for the just and proper adjudication of the case

Nothing was on record that defendant agitated the framing of additional issue before the Family Court at any stage

Defendant was estopped from seeking an issue to be framed after conclusion of trial

Appellate Court should have appreciated that prayer for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights could not be granted as Talaq had been confirmed

Defendant should have insisted on framing of an issue with regard to conjugal rights

Non-framing of an issue by the Family Court was not even a ground taken in the defendant's appeal

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and judgment and decree passed by the Family Court were restored

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Hearing of accused, was not necessary by Justice of Peace, prior to making any order while deciding the petition under S. 22-A(6), Cr.P.C.

Plea of grant of bail or protective bail in constitutional jurisdiction required to be attended carefully within parameters of Art.199 of the Constitution

Attendance of accused could not be substituted through attorney though S.205, Cr.P.C., provided mechanism whereby a Magistrate could dispense with personal attendance of accused

Such provision could not be taken to expand jurisdiction of High Court to grant bail which per S.497, Cr.P.C. was subject to arrest, detention, appearance or his bringing before a Court

Provisions of Art. 10-A of the Constitution insisted for fair trial which object could not be achieved without providing accused an opportunity to face the charge. particularly where accused himself volunteered to do so

If accused of cognizable offence showed his intention to face his trial and resorted to constitutional jurisdiction for the purpose of enabling him to land at Pakistan to approach proper courts, then he could resort for such purpose

Purpose of Red Notices was to seek location of a wanted person and his or her detention, arrest or restriction of movement for purposes of extradition, surrender or similar lawful action

Such by itself was not meant to declare the 'innocence or guilt' of the person against whom a Red Notice was issued nor it was in any way prejudice the rights of fair trial of such person

Intention of petitioner was to face charges and it would serve the purpose of Red Notice touching the object of fair trial as enshrined in the Constitution through insertion of Art.10-A of the Constitution

High Court declined to grant bail to the petitioner but enabled him to land at the lands of Pakistan and to immediately approach the proper Court for bail

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Right of being personally heard was an inseparable right of a tax payer and could not be denied to him under any circumstances and violation of principles of natural justice could be equated with violation of provisions of statutory provisions.

Landed and built up property, fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees were compulsorily acquired at public expenses for public purposes

Land Acquisition Collector considered one year average price of mixed type of land as well as one year average price of single kind of land

Criteria of one year average price could not be made basis for assessment of compensation amount of acquired land

Compensation should be fixed in the light of criteria of a willing vendor and that of a needy vendee when land was acquired in the interest of general public at public expenses on the basis of sacrifice of an individual

Compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, in the present case, was not according to legal and equitable criteria

Law would favour award of fair compensation in case of compulsory acquisition of land

Acquired property was situated in one compact block in the middle of city having potential value and Referee Court was required to appoint local commission for determination of fair compensation

Local commission should also associate all the concerned revenue officials for keeping in view the then one year average price of mixed kind of land and one year average price of single kind of land besides other factors including future potential value of acquired land as well as the schedule of valuation

Referee Court had decided the matter of apportionment of compensation amount in haste without consulting of revenue record

Court should take into consideration the assessment of land acquired in the same vicinity

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Referee Court were set aside and objection petitions were remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law

Appeals were accepted in circumstances.

Testimony of closely related witness, must get corroboration through corroboratory evidence, which was to come from unimpeachable source

Conviction could be recorded on the basis of statement of a solitary witness, provided same was trustworthy, confidence inspiring and corroborated by circumstantial evidence; because it was the quality and not the quantity of the evidence, which mattered in criminal dispensation of justice.

Any such public post had to be filled through public advertisement to ensure transparency and merit.

Any such public post had to be filled through public advertisement to ensure transparency and merit.

Recovery at the pointation of accused, did not necessarily require association of two persons, but same had to be proved per Art.40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Where the prosecution established its case through direct, natural and confidence inspiring evidence, the need of corroborative pieces of evidence, was not of much significance.

Decree-holder was bound to apply for a notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C. so that judgment debtor had an opportunity of raising objection to the sale, if any, or assist in settling terms to sale

Judgment-debtor was entitled for notice to settle terms of sale proclamation

Judgment-debtor would lose right to object the execution petition after his service through public notice

Service of earlier notice would not take away the right of judgment-debtor to claim notice when property was put to auction

Sale could not be considered to be a valid sale in absence of notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C.

When the judgment-debtor, in response to the notice, failed to appear, he was precluded by the rule of constructive res judicata from raising such objection at a later time and not by virtue of notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C.

Non-compliance to the provisions of O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C. might vitiate the sale on account of material irregularity

Application for deposit of decretal amount was accepted in circumstances.

Plaintiff/respondent filed first appeal, whereby first appellate court found that the trial court while dictating the judgment mistakenly mentioned the wrong names of defence witnesses, therefore the wrong cases was remanded back to the trial court on the ground that it had not decided the suit after applying its mind

Contention of the petitioner/defendant was that first appellate court fell in error by remanding the case on the basis of technicalities

Validity

Trial court while dictating the judgment inadvertently/ wrongly mentioned the name of defense witnesses but the said names had been corrected by himself which were apparent in judgment

Inadvertent mistake committed in the judgment had been correctly made by the learned trial court

First appellate court had failed to advert to such points while remanding the case

Judgment of first appellate court was not tenable in the eye of law, as it was the duty of the first appellate court to decide the matter itself instead of remanding the case to the trial court inasmuch as mere wrong mentioning the names of defence witnesses had not rendered the judgment illegal or based on misreading and non-reading of evidence

Trial court after considering all the material available on the record had decided the matter in accordance with law

First appellate court ought to have decided the appeal after hearing the parties and going through the record of the case but while remanding the case, first appellate court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction

Appellate court had committed material illegality and irregularity while remanding the case to the trial court for its decision afresh

Order passed by the first appellate court was set aside

First appellate court was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law

Revision petition was allowed.

When provision of S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is read with S.24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, no doubt is left that an order under S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 selecting a case for audit is required to be made within the parameters of the factors enumerated therein and the Commissioner while making the order is required to assign specific reasons having regard to the factors prescribed under S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 read with provision contained in S.24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

High Court was vested with the powers to issue direction that such question, as it could consider necessary to be decided on evidence; and in such a manner as it deemed fit, and in that case it could follow such procedure and could pass such order as appeared to be just

Generally, on the question of fact, unrebutted affidavit was treated to be sufficient proof.

Federal Government could not ' act arbitrarily, capriciously and in a mechanical manner, rather was required under the law to assign justiciable reasons, amenable to the power of judicial review of the superior courts

Non-giving the reasons would render the notification untenable in the eyes of law.

Contention that application filed under O.XIV, R.5, C.P.C. was to be dismissed as it was not supported by personal affidavit of the party

Validity

Affidavit of the counsel in support of the said application was sufficient

High Court set aside the objection of the counsel on the point that such application be dismissed for it was not supported by personal affidavit of the party.

Principles.

Reason for introduction of the provisions of clause (d) of subsection (1) of S.121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the legislature appears to provide the adequate opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before framing of the best judgment assessment.

Petitioner assailed judgment and decree on the ground that she did not sign any document in favour of bank, including mortgage deed and general power of attorney

Validity

Banking Court must have referred the same to handwriting expert for obtaining his opinion whether purported signatures on disputed documents were in handwriting of petitioner or were forged or manipulated by somebody else

Such important aspect of the case not only escaped attention of Banking Court but High Court also did not take notice thereof

Any person could not be made liable for making payment which he or she was otherwise not legally bound to pay but was pressurized and forced to pay on the ground of some forged or manipulated documents

Supreme Court, in view of persistent, strong and vehemence denial of petitioner of her signatures on mortgage deed, power of attorney etc. made comparison of her denied signatures with her admitted signatures and further directed comparison by handwriting expert to conclusively hold that disputed documents had signatures of petitioner

Supreme Court also directed that proceedings against petitioner would be taken after the report of handwriting expert was received by concerned Banking Court in terms of the report

Appeal was allowed.

Where any of such three Talbs was missing, then pre-emptor would not be entitled for pre-emption decree-Mode of performing Talib-i-Muwathihat stated.