Power of court

2026 CLC 782 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XXVI, R. 9Specific Relief Act (I 1877), S. 8Suit for possessionIllegal occupation of landAppointment of Local Commission for demarcationPower of courtScope

Contention of the petitioner/defendant was that Local Commission could not be appointed as it amounts to creating of evidence

Validity

Order XXVI, R.9, C.P.C. invests sufficient powers upon the courts to appoint the Local Commission for investigation so as to clarify itself as at the end of the day it is the court which has to decide the issue pending before it

No illegality had been committed by the courts below by ordering demarcation of the property in dispute so as to decide the controversy pending before it in a befitting and proper manner as demarcation did not mean that it was ordered for creating evidence for a particular party

Appointment of Local Commission qua demarcation was only to elucidate the pending matter and to verify the situation on ground enabling the courts to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, therefore, there was no circumstance to create evidence for any party, thus, the orders of courts below were in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJ 711 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 265-F(6) & (7)Defense evidence, adducing ofPower of courtScopeTrial Court has to receive defense evidence if so opted to adduceWord 'shall' cannot be termed as discretion of Trial Court

Trial Court can only refuse application for production of documents as evidence when it considers that application is for purpose of vexation or delay or defeating ends of justice.

2020 PCrLJ 289 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Power of courtScopeGrant of bail lies with discretion of court

Granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by facts and circumstances of each particular case but bail can be withheld only in exceptional circumstances.

2020 PTD 27 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Power of courtPenal or taxing statutePrinciplesCourts are only required to interpret a statute and not to add and/or delete any provision in statute

While interpreting a specific provision of a statute, intent of Legislature and language employed is determinative of legislative intent and courts have to interpret same while keeping such intention in mind

In interpreting a penal or taxing statute, court must look to words of statute and interpret them in light of what is clearly expressed

Court cannot imply anything which is not expressed, it cannot import provisions in statute so as to support assumed deficiency

Statute is an edict of Legislature and conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek intention of maker

If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation court has to choose that interpretation which represents true intention of Legislature

Function of court is only to expound and not to legislate.

2020 CLD 1260 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 84Comparison of signaturesPower of courtPrinciple

Under provisions of Art. 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 court enjoys plenary powers to compare signatures itself along with relevant record to come to a fair and just conclusion.

2018 MLD 1658 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 25Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908 ), O. XVII, R.3Custody of minor-Dismissal of suit on failure to produce evidencePower of CourtScopeQuestion before the court was as to whether such power was mandatory or discretionary

Petitioner/father of the minor contended that Trial Court had wrongly exercised its power to dismiss his application for the custody of minor for want of evidence as the said power was not mandatory in nature

Respondent/mother contended that inspite of availing successive adjournments, spanning over two years, father had not produced even a single witness

Effect

Rule 3 of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. was not mandatory rather matter had been left to the discretion of the court

Where the act/conduct of the party appeared to be contumacious/negligent one and it failed to produce its evidence inspite of grant of time, Court was empowered to decide the suit forthwith

Such empowerment had made the provision penal in nature and the same was to be strictly construed and applied by curtailing discretionary powers

Record showed that out of 23 opportunities availed by the father, only on one occasion the petitioner produced his evidence but even on that date he sought adjournment

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2018 YLR 848 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.1 & 20Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12, 42 & 54Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, declaration and injunctionPower of courtAims and objects of societyPlaintiff, a welfare association sought direction to authorities to allot plots to its members in new Sabzi MandiValidity

Civil Court could not pass discretionary decree of specific performance in favour of group of dubious / unidentified plaintiffs in respect of an unidentified immovable property on payment of an unidentified price/sale consideration against defendants who were neither owners nor authorized to sale any immovable property

Aims and objects of plaintiff association appeared to be only an eyewash or an attempt to defraud statute namely Societies Registration Act, 1860

For the last 20 years not a single Dispensary or Health Center was established by the plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff association even if it was formed for the 'purpose' described in S.20 of Societies Registration Act, 1860, had failed to take any step in furtherance of its aims and objects

All other aims and objects of plaintiff were of general utility and did not construe to be an object for any of the 'purpose' for which S.20 of Societies Registration Act, 1860 had been enacted

Suit was not filed to protect and/or promote aims and objects of plaintiff association

Objects of association/society which were inconsistent with the provision of S.20 of Societies Registration Act, 1860, were inoperative and had no legal consequences

Plaintiff Association was not entitled to any relief and suit was not maintainable

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 PCrLJ 1368 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 540Re-examination/re-calling of witnessesPower of courtScope

Provision of S. 540, Cr.P.C. had given unrestricted power to the court to call evidence at any stage, provided Court was satisfied that it was essential for a just decision.

2017 PTD 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Levy of taxViresPower of courtScope

Power to levy taxes is a sine qua non for the State insofar as the same is essential for the purposes of generating financial resources and utilization of those resources for welfare of people at large

Legislature enjoys plenary power to impose taxes within the framework of the Constitution and such power rests on necessity as it is an essential and inherent attribute of sovereignty belonging to a matter of right to every independent State or government

By exercising such powers, mala fide cannot be attributed to legislature.

2017 CLC 1353 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 114 & O. XLVIIReviewPrinciplesPower of court

Scope.

2014 PLD 113 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 540Summoning material witness or examining persons presentPower of court

Object of S.540, Cr.P.C., as a whole was to do justice not only from the point of view of accused and the prosecution, but also that of orderly society

Section 540, conferred a wide discretion on the court to act as the exigencies of justice

Discretion was to be exercised judiciously, only for the ends of justice and it did not confer on any party the right to examine, cross-examine or re-examine any witness which was entirely the discretion of the court

Witness could not be examined under S.540, Cr.P.C., as court-witness just to fill up the gap of the prosecution's case, or to prolong the proceedings

Paramount consideration was doing justice between the parties

Proposed statement of Magistrate, was not a statement about fact, but was only his opinion drawn from the material collected by him; which was neither admissible in evidence, nor binding upon the Trial Court, while deciding the fate of the case

Calling of the proposed witness in the present case, was nothing, but a futile activity just to prolong the proceedings, because Court had formed its opinion on the basis of evidence furnished in the case

Witnesses sought to be summoned and examined, were already produced and examined by the prosecution witnesses

Trial Court was not to summon said witness i.e. Magistrate as his evidence was absolutely not essential for the just decision of the case

Evidence of proposed witness was neither admissible, nor could the same be used as incriminating piece of evidence against accused persons

Proposed witness/Magistrate, had only conducted an inquiry, entrusted to him by the Trial Court to determine the truth or falsehood of the occurrence in question on administrative side; and his opinion was not binding upon the Trial Court

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and application filed under S.540, Cr.P.C., was dismissed, in circumstances.

2014 PCrLJ 1496 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 540Material witness, summoning ofPower of CourtScope

While exercising vested powers, Court can summon, examine or re-examine any person, if just decision of the case so demands, which is the prime object of criminal administration of justice.

2013 CLC 6 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Subsequent eventsPower of court

While lis is pending, court can take notice of subsequent events and pass appropriate orders in order to do substantial justice.