PTD
2002
I.T.A. No. 676/IB of 1997-98, decided on 20th June, 2001.
N/A
Court: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
PTD
2003
Reference Applications Nos. 52(IB) and 53(IB) of 2002, decided on 2nd August, 2002.
N/A
Court: Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
SCMR
2007
Cr.Ps.L.A. Nos.17-K of 2007 and 18-K of 2007, decided on 26th February, 2007.
THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh — Petitioner Versus ZAHID ALI — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore
PTD
2002
M.A. (R) No. 3/IB of 2001-2002 in I.T.A. No. 676/IB of 1997-98, decided on 4th September, 2001.
N/A
Court: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
PTD
2022
I.T.A. No.314/LB of 2015, decided on 20th December, 2021.
MANZOOR AHMAD Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE II, RTO, FAISALABAD
Court: Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal
YLR
2000
‑‑‑‑S.5 & Sched. Ss. 7, 8, 9‑‑‑Suit for jactitation of marriage‑‑‑Ex parte order, setting aside of‑‑‑Plaintiff, on direction of Court, sent copy of plaint to defendant alongwith list. of witnesses and other documents through registered post‑‑ Defendant having failed to appear in the Court despite sending him notice through registered post, plaintiff on direction of the Court caused a notice for appearance of defendant in newspaper‑‑‑Defendant having failed to appear even after publishing notice, Trial Court initiated ex parte proceedings against defendant and after examining witnesses produced by plaintiff and hearing arguments, announced ex parte judgment‑‑ Trial Court on application moved, by defendant for setting aside ex parte judgment, set aside the same after due process of law holding that time limit for appearance of defendant was fifteen days after service upon him and as ex parte proceedings were initiated against him before expiry of said time limit, ex parte judgment and decree were liable to be set aside‑‑‑Plaintiff aggrieved by said order of Trial Court had challenged the same in appeal contending that defendant having deliberately absented himself, ex parte judgment passed against him could not be set aside‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Provision of Ss. 8 & 9 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993 dealing with intimation of defendant and filing of written statement by defendant, were not mandatory, but were directory in nature as no penal clause had been provided for non‑compliance of the said provisions of law‑‑‑Where no penal clause was provided by a provision of law, the same would be deemed to be directory in nature‑‑‑Court could or could not proceed ex parte as it was left to the discretion of the Court to proceed ex parte or otherwise, after expiry of fifteen days from service upon defendant‑‑‑To proceed ex parte against defendant before expiry of the time limit of fifteen days was contrary to law‑‑‑Judgment and decree recorded on basis of ex pane proceedings were rightly set aside by Trial Court‑‑‑Nature of suit required that it should be decided on merits because ex parte decree in such‑like cases would not leave a positive effect while living in Muslim Society.
RAFHAT RASHID and 7 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus GHULAM SARWAR‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Federal Shariat Court (AJ&K)
PTD
2000
Files Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10/Income-tax Appeal, decided on 19th May, 2000.
Through Inam Elahi Azhar, EVP and Provincial Chief, PHQ (Punjab) Versus INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AJK COUNCIL, MUZAFFARABAD
Court: Azad J & K High Court
CLD
2004
Writ Petition No. 10475 of 2003, decided on 30‑7‑2003.
HABIB BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs CHANLITTY (P.V.T.)‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad — Petitioner Versus ZAFAR AWAN — Respondent
Court: Shariat Review Jurisdiction
