Criterion

General damages are awarded on a discretionary basis, guided by judicial experience and precedent, whereas special damages require a detailed evidentiary foundation and must be clearly substantiated by the claimant

The overarching objective in awarding such damages is to restore the injured party, as far as possible, to the position they would have been in had the wrongful act not occurred.

Legally domicile in Pakistan is governed by S. 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and R. 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952

These provide the basis and procedural framework for acquiring domicile

Rule 23(b) empowers the competent authority to demand evidence establishing both continuous residence and intent to remain

Factors considered include length of stay, family ties, property ownership, school enrollment, local employment, and community participation

Therefore, person seeking issuance of domicile must substantiate their permanent and continuous residence and intent to remain at the place through credible evidence.

Mere urgency or delay in filing of FIR was not sole criterion to take FIR as gospel truth or disbelieve the same as a whole while dealing with an application for bail

Criterion in cases falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. would remain the same as had been chalked out i.e. bringing the case out of subsection (i) to subsection (ii) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Either of two could well be one of grounds to appreciate tilt but not a decisive fact to decline or earn liberty in cases falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C.

Scope-Criterion of appraisal of evidence in an appeal against acquittal was quite different than an appeal against conviction, because in case of appeal against acquittal, double presumption of innocence laid in favour of the accused

Even where another view was possible, the view favourable to accused was to be preferred.

Wife of the landlord-respondent required the lower portion of the premises, wherein three shops were located, for opening a Day Care Centre

Tenant-petitioner had not denied the fact that the premises was not required by the landlord-respondent for his own use and no malice had been found on his part and the pleadings of the landlord-respondent had remained consistent

Property of the landlord-respondent was his only property and there could be no question of having alternate place for opening the said Day Care Centre

Out of three shops, one shop was vacant and so far as the other two shops were concerned the other tenant had given an assurance to the landlord-respondent to vacate the said shop as and when required

Third shop was in occupation of the present tenant-petitioner and for opening a Day Care Centre the whole place was required

Premise that due permission for opening a Day Care Centre from concerned quarter had not yet been obtained hence no personal bona fide use had been established, was not correct

Tenant-petitioner was to prove that the said place was not required by the landlord-respondent for his or her personal bona fide use which in the present case had not been established by the tenant-petitioner; it was the prerogative of the landlord-respondent to choose among a number of places which would suit him or her best and no bar could be placed in that behalf upon him

Only criterion, which had to be fulfilled by the landlord-respondent so far as the cases of personal bona fide use were concerned, was to establish that such place was genuinely required by the landlord in good faith and such good faith had to be established from the facts obtaining in a case.