Necessary ingredients

It was incumbent upon petitioner, within the scope of S.144 (1)(b) of Elections Act, 2017 to provide full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice or other illegal act alleged to have been committed including names of parties who were alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act and date and palace of commission of such practice or act

Instead of meeting such legal requirement by identifying voters whose details were allegedly altered in Pictorial Voter Lists, the petitioner threw excessively wider net and resorted to unfounded accusations against polling staff

Even witnesses produced by petitioner failed to name a single member of polling staff or any other individual who according to them had committed rigging during election process

Petitioner neither in his petition nor at any stage during the trial made any effort to get forensic analysis of thumb impression of Election Officials

In case petitioner intended to prove beyond reasonable that Form-45, he had been relying upon, bore original thumb impression of Election Officials, he could have filed specific application in such regard or should have asserted such fact in his petition but he did not do so

Election Tribunal declined to interfere in the election result, as there existed no ground for declaring election of respondent / returned candidate void

Election petition was dismissed in circumstances.

If ligature mark is not round the neck, eyes are closed, ribs are not fractured and hands are not clenched then the case is of suicide

Such a report raises a very high probability of asphyxia death and killing by hanging, which under all probabilities is deemed to be a suicide/unnatural death and not homicide at all.

Section 191, P.P.C talks about making of false statement in following three situations when;

Requirement of S.192 P.P.C. is met only if there is an intention to create a circumstance, false entry or document with the expectation of its being used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in any other proceeding by law before any public servant or an arbitrator, and such circumstance, false entry or document facilitated in rendering an erroneous opinion for result of that proceedings.

The first element is that there must be an agreement express or implied between the ostensible owner and the purchaser for purchase of the property in the name of ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who has to make payment of the consideration; and second element required to be proved is that transaction was actually entered between the real purchaser and seller to which ostensible owner was not a party.

Verdict or judgment of Appellate Court which does not contain justified reasoning to set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court cannot sustain in the eyes of law

Appellate Court can competently reverse findings of Trial Court but such reversal must always be backed by better and sustainable legal reasoning

Appellate Court cannot evolve findings arbitrarily and illegally on imaginary principles and cannot exercise its jurisdiction unlawfully suffering from material irregularities

Such judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Essential features of term "case property" are that (i) it should have been used in commission of offence, (ii) offence appears to have been committed in respect of such property, (iii) it is the property which was stolen and then recovered from accused persons, and (iv) it itself is evidence of commission of offence.

In cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, parties' pleadings must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on such particulars

Mere allegation of fraud, misrepresentation and coercion not supported by any material does not invariably warrant inquiry or investigation in each case.

Fiscal statute normally contains two provisions; charging provisions which impose charge to tax and machinery provisions which provide machinery for quantification of tax and the levy and collection of tax so imposed

Charging provisions are construed strictly while machinery provisions of the statute are not generally subject to a rigorous construction.

Even on such count alone judgment/order assailed.

Plaintiff was a pharmaceutical company who had conferred rights upon defendant in respect of distribution of products in Pakistan and some of the products were registered in the name of defendant by issuance of registration letters

Plaintiff company claimed for transfer of earlier registered product in its favour from defendant

Validity

Principal operators informed Drug Regulatory Authority that plaintiff was their affiliated who terminated distribution agreement with defendant for distribution of products

Principal operator and plaintiff had a new agreement to distribute the products within the territory of Pakistan and four specific drugs were highlighted

Plaintiff was again authorized by foreign principal, which facts were communicated to Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan

In absence of any contract between foreign principal and defendant it was a matter of serious concern if defendant would continue to manufacture, market and sell product of foreign principal without its permission and authorization

Plaintiffs disclosed a prima facie case with balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss in their favour

High Court granted interim injunction to plaintiffs against defendant

Application was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiff was a pharmaceutical company who had conferred rights upon defendant in respect of distribution of products in Pakistan and some of the products were registered in the name of defendant by issuance of registration letters

Plaintiff company claimed for transfer of earlier registered product in its favour from defendant

Validity

Principal operators informed Drug Regulatory Authority that plaintiff was their affiliated who terminated distribution agreement with defendant for distribution of products

Principal operator and plaintiff had a new agreement to distribute the products within the territory of Pakistan and four specific drugs were highlighted

Plaintiff was again authorized by foreign principal, which facts were communicated to Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan

In absence of any contract between foreign principal and defendant it was a matter of serious concern if defendant would continue to manufacture, market and sell product of foreign principal without its permission and authorization

Plaintiffs disclosed a prima facie case with balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss in their favour

High Court granted interim injunction to plaintiffs against defendant

Application was allowed, in circumstances.

Court at such stage is to make a tentative assessment of the case for enabling itself to see whether three requisites are met or not

Relief of injunction is known to be discretionary and it is to be granted following sound legal principles and ex-debito justiae

Term "prima facie case" is not specifically defined in Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but the consensus is that in order to satisfy about existence of a prima facie case, pleadings must contain facts constituting existence of right of plaintiff and its infringement at the hands of opposite party

Balance of convenience is that if an injunction is not granted and suit is ultimately decided in favour of plaintiff, the inconvenience caused to plaintiff would be greater than that would be caused to defendant, if the injunction is granted

It is for the plaintiff to show that inconvenience caused to plaintiff would be greater than that which may be caused to defendant

Irreparable loss is held to mean to be the loss, which is incapable of being calculated on the yardstick of money.

To infer a franchise under S. 2(12a) of Federal Excise Act, 2005 necessary ingredients are namely, (i) authority by franchiser, (ii) resultant right acquired by franchisee, (iii) franchised service or product, (iv) fee therefor and (v) identification of product or service with franchiser.

Building Control Inspector who visits building / office / house, which is under non-conforming use, has to submit a written report clearly stating therein name, date, time when the building was visited as well as reasons on the basis of which he reaches to the conclusion that building is under non-conforming use

Report must contain timeline of non-conforming use tentatively to assess quantum of fine by Deputy Commissioner, Capital Development Authority (CDA) till removal of non-conforming use

Any visiting card, sign board, pictures, video evidences, letter head correspondence, which can be made basis of opinion of non-conforming use of the building may also be made part of the report including but not limited to statement of individuals who are occupant in the building, if any.

Appellant/borrower in his petition for leave to appear alleged repayments to respondent/plaintiff conceding availing of finance facility in question and execution of security documents

Instead of throwing potent challenge through relying upon counter accounts, not even a single entry contained in statement of accounts annexed with plaint was challenged

Statement of accounts filed by respondent/plaintiff was in conformity with requirement of S. 9(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, bearing certification at the foot under Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891

Petition for leave to appear failed to identify a challenge to principal amount or that the mark-up was exaggeratedly charged or was charged beyond contractual period

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Banking Court and decreed the suit as the same did not suffer from any legal infirmity

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, possession and cancellation of documents along with application under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C.

Respondents/defendants filed contesting written statement as well as reply of application

Trial Court accepted the prayer of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of restraining respondents/ defendants from alienating the suit property any further

Respondents/ defendants filed an appeal which was allowed by Appellate Court and dismissed the application

Validity

Petitioners/ plaintiffs could not make out a prima facie good arguable case in their favour, as such , balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss also did not tilt in their favour

Necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. were existence of prima facie arguable case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury

Civil revision was dismissed.

Plaintiff is required to prove 'malice' and 'reasonable and probable cause' independently in cases of 'malicious prosecution'

When issue of 'reasonable and probable cause' is not established, question of 'malice' becomes irrelevant and even otherwise Court may not be required to prove further because of failure of claimant to cross one hurdle

When 'reasonable and probable cause' is established, Court should carefully examine element of 'malice' on the part of defendant.

Accused sought transfer of his case to Court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction on the plea that it was not an act of terrorism

Validity

Fear or insecurity created actually or not as a result of an offence is not a decisive factor to qualify it as terrorism; it is only when intent and motive of such offence is to create fear or insecurity in society for achieving political, ideological and religious objectives, such act can be labelled as terrorism

Deceased were done away inside house and motive prima facie, from investigation report under S.173, Cr.P.C. besides being robbery was shrouded in mystery

Purpose to kill deceased was unrelated to objectives specified and detailed in S.6(1)(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Though death of deceased was horrific but design to assassinate them was not to create terrorism or to destabilize government for achieving political etc. objectives

Such situation, its effects and consequences did not align with terrorism

Case was transferred from the Court of Anti-Terrorism to Court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Before any action was taken, affected party was to be given a notice to show cause against proposed action and to seek his explanation, as the same was sine qua non of right of fair hearing

Any order passed without giving notice was against principles of natural justice and was void ab initio

Before taking any action, it was right of a person to know the facts, as without knowing facts of case no one could defend himself

Right to notice meant right of being known

Right to know facts of suit or case was to happen at start of any hearing and notice was a must to start a hearing

Notice was to contain time, place and date of hearing, jurisdiction under which case was filed, charges and proposed action against person

All such things were to be included in notice to make it proper and adequate

Whenever statute made it clear that notice was to be issued to party and if no compliance or failure to give notice occurred, the same had made that act void

Non-issue of notice or any defective service of notice did not affect jurisdiction of authority but had violated principles of natural justice

Cancellation orders passed by authorities were illegal, perverse to record and arbitrary

High Court set aside orders passed by authorities as the same were void and of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

At least some person has to comply with the demand whether in cash or otherwise in order to obtain release of abductee.

Petitioner was being called either as witness or accused and she was entitled to know reasons/details for which she was called

National Accountability Bureau had no intention to arrest petitioner at the moment and had no objection to confirming her bail

High Court directed NAB that if and when any action to arrest petitioner would be proposed by NAB, it should take into account the observations made by High Court in earlier case

High Court declared that call up notices were issued in violation of law and were set aside

High Court provided the required details of information for call up notice to be issued by the NAB

Bail was confirmed, in circumstances.

Expression "essentially" has a nexus with dishonesty, fraud, conduct involving graft or bribery, deception, depravity etc.

"Corruption and corrupt practice" involves intent or conscious knowledge of wrongdoing and goes beyond conduct or action sans a guilty mind

Actus reus by itself does not constitute offence nor loss caused pursuant thereto unless it is accompanied by men srea

In the context of offences under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, existence of both actus reus and mensrea should, prima facie, float on the surface of Reference filed by National Accountability Bureau.

Mere allegations of misuse of authority does not justify depriving an accused of liberty because an irregularity or wrong decision sans criminal intent, mens rea and illegal gain or benefit does not attract offences under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Wording of Art. 19 of the Constitution does not give unbridled license to press to publish any material which may harm reputation of a person

Freedom of press is subject to such restrictions as could be legitimately imposed under law

On pretext of freedom of expression newspapers cannot be allowed to play havoc with character and dignity of a respectable citizen.

Notice should contain a specific reference of required information in respect of the offence alleged or any material which can suggest that provision of Ordinance/Rule or order made thereunder have been contravened.

To establish an offence under S.9(a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, three ingredients have to be satisfied: Nature and extent of pecuniary resources of property which were found in his possession; it must be proved as to what was his known sources of income; and it must be proved, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Affidavit of service of copies of petition; annexures and documentary evidence to the respondents under S. 144(2)(c), Elections Act, 2017, requirement of

Significance

Petitioner contested election and being dissatisfied with results assailed the same

Validity

Copy of notification whereby respondent was declared as returned candidate by Election Commission of Pakistan had not been appended with election petition

When there was a specific prayer for declaring election of returned candidate void, illegal and without any effect then annexing copy of notification was essential prerequisite

Election petition must contain affidavit of service under S. 144(2)(c) of Elections Act, 2017, to the effect that copy of petition along with copies of all annexures, including list of witnesses, affidavits and documentary evidence were sent to all respondents by registered post or courier service

Simple affidavit before Additional Registrar of High Court signed on the day of filing of petition did not fulfil requirements as laid down

Non-signing of annexures was also fatal for election petition and same could not be allowed to proceed

Constitutional petition was rejected in circumstances.

Application for temporary injunction to the extent of restraining encashment of cheques was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court restrained the defendants to encash the said cheques subject to furnishing Bank guarantee by the plaintiff

Validity

Specific dates had been given in the cheques and if defendants were to be restrained from encashing them then same could not be presented for payment after expiry of fixed period

Requirement of prima facie case in the matter of temporary injunction was not the only condition but other ingredients and factors like balance of convenience, irreparable loss, conduct of the parties, nature of suit, time likely to be absorbed in it and workability and reasonableness of the orders proposed to be passed should also be present

If by issuing an injunctive order the intention was to relieve a party from certain oppression then care was to be taken at the same time to avoid oppression for the other party

Plaintiff could not be permitted to avoid the performance of the commitment in the garb of protective order of the Court

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court had created a balance while granting ad interim injunction by requiring the plaintiff to furnish Bank guarantee for the cheque amount

Buyer in a suit for specific performance should voluntarily deposit the balance sale price to show his bona fide and non-deposit of such amount or waiting for the final decree to deposit the price would reflect the bona fide of the purchaser adversely

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was fair, reasonable and just and no error of law had been committed

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Vendee, in order to enforce sale, must establish firstly that transaction was struck with title-holder or having authority to create a right, secondly it was settled against consideration and thirdly that it was accompanied by delivery of possession

Mere execution of agreement, attestation of mutation or even registration of document by itself does not furnish proof of ingredients of "sale"

Whenever any of such documents as well as transaction of sale reflected therein is denied or questioned, onus lies on beneficiary.

Difference between S.144(1)(a) of Elections Act, 2017 and O. VI, R. 2, C.P.C. is that latter requires 'concise statement of material facts' whereas words used in former provision are 'precise statement of material facts' which is more stringent than provisions under general law

Similarly, under O. VI, R. 4, C.P.C. material particulars are essential if any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence is pleaded

In other cases material particulars can be given if necessary.

Only change in two provisions (S. 144 Elections Act, 2017 and S.55 Representative of the People Act, 1976) is that requirement for verification of every schedule or annexures has been relaxed as same does not diminish importance of verification of petition as required under Representation of the People Act, 1976

Comparison of S. 144 of Elections Act, 2017 with S. 55 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 shows that former has imposed additional obligations of attaching statements of witnesses on affidavits and documentary evidence to support allegations of alleged corrupt and illegal practice with date and place

Such insertion has rendered requirement for contents of petition and its annexures more stringent than the repealed law.

Burden of proof has two distinct elements; (a) legal burden, i.e., burden of establishing guilt and (b) evidential burden, i.e., burden of leading evidence

Burden to prove everything was essential to establish charge against accused squarely which lies upon the prosecution and such burden never shifts

Burden of proving particularly the fact in issue, in certain offences, may also lay upon the accused.

Prosecution must prove facts namely; (i) accused is a public servant, (ii) nature and extent of pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (iii) what were his known sources of income, i.e., known to prosecution and, (iv) it must prove quite objectively that resources or property found in possession of accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income

Once said four ingredients are found, offence under S. 9(a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is said to have been committed unless accused himself, by adducing evidence, is able to account for such resources of property

Burden accordingly shifts to accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets

Extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon a public servant to be found in possession of disproportionate assets is equitable with preponderance of probability in similar cases.

Investigation of case does not mean that after registration of FIR truth has to be extracted from incriminating material

Investigation generally consists of steps: Proceedings on the spot; ascertaining facts/circumstances of case; discovery of arrest of suspended offender; collection of evidence relating to commission of offence and formation of opinion as to trial of the case

Investigating Officer is to send its final report to the court

Provisions relating to Ss. 157, 160 & 161, Cr.P.C. dealing with investigation have provided mechanism of check and balance so that a fair and impartial investigation is conducted within framework of such provisions and also without fear or nepotism and favoritism

Police officer was expected to act fairly, honestly and without any biases.

Show-cause notice is required to state necessary particulars so that addressee is fully informed as to which provision has been invoked against him.

Case of plaintiff was based upon allegations made in the plaint, the last agreement between the parties and contentions in pleadings, which all were not in consonance with one another, if not in contradiction

Plaintiff had the option to prove his case as the controversy between the parties was of factual nature whereon applicable law was dependent

Matter of interim injunction could not be left to the conclusions of evidence, where the same was obtained on the first date, on recording contentions of plaintiff's version only at the time of granting notice to the other side

Injunction order interim or of permanent nature had to be based upon record available before a Court of law, covering all three required aspects/ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss

Case as made out by plaintiff at such point of time fell short of having a prima facie nature for injunction on the basis of record available (irrespective of the allegations made, which could not be the sole basis) as such the interim injunction was also not available

Denial being termed as evasive was not sufficient in presence of last agreement for any relief claimed by plaintiff in such regard

Case of plaintiff at such point of time was only maintainable for damages

High Court withdrew ad-interim injunction granted in favour of plaintiff at the time of filing of plaint

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Moral turpitude was a necessary element for misconduct.

Widow of deceased owner of property in question died during pendency of petition and applicant did not file proper amended petition

Validity

On the death of widow of deceased owner, in amended petition for the share inherited by her, amended petition must disclose her legal heirs

Once all codel formalities were honestly completed and petition of letter of administration was granted, it would be duty of petitioner to administer properties of both deceased parents as per law which could include first mutation in the name of respective legal heirs and then it would be the choice of new owners by way of inheritance to deal with their respective individual shares in joint properties the way they could wish to, but in accordance with law

Grant of letter of Administration was always subject to the Rules

Purpose of obtaining sureties by Court in terms of Rr. 399 & 340 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) was to ensure that petitioner would administer properties of deceased in accordance with law and honestly.

Meaning.

Plaintiff must prove that there was a prosecution without reasonable and probable cause, initiated by malice and the case was resolved in plaintiff's favour

Plaintiff also necessarily had to prove that damage was suffered as a result of the prosecution.

Three essentials of challan/report submitted by police under S.173 Cr.P.C. before Trial Court, which includes description of offence, production of accused and evidence to prove offence

Trial Court can start trial only when all three facts are produced before it.

Four components to form an agreement to sell a property:- (i) identification of seller and purchaser, (ii) sale consideration amount, (iii) identification of property to be sold and (iv) parties to agreement to sell property at consensus ad idem.

Enumerated.

Object of provisions' of O.XLI, Rule 31, C. P. C. is to provide pavement to Appellate Court for writing good, characteristic and self-explanatory judgment

Judgment of Lower Appellate Court must contain reasons: that justify conclusion arrived at by Lower Appellate Court

Legislature has entrusted very important duty to Appellate Court to decide finally ail questions of facts and law involved because judgment of Trial Court disappears and merges in judgment of Appellate Court and there remains in existence only one judgment, i.e. of Appellate Court

Judgment of Appellate Court should contain points for determination of dispute and must have reasons for decision

1]' Appellate Court fails to comply mandatory provisions of O.XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C., it fails In performance of his duties and judgment is not in accordance with law.

Validity-Ingredients which could determine status of property as Waqf, were permanent dedication and that too for a religious, pious or charitable purpose

If such ingredients were missing or not provided, property could not be declared as Waqf property

Deed of dedication was the most important document to determine status of property as Waqf, by which permanent dedication had been made for religious or pious purpose but there was no such document on record

On the touchstone of definition of S.2 (e) of Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, property in question could not be termed as Waqf because it was not permanently dedicated for religious or pious purpose

Notification of Waqf issued by authorities declaring land in question as Waqf was declared as illegal, void .against law and ineffective upon the rights of appellant

High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, set aside the notification passed by authorities and judgment passed by Trial Court

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.