Restrictions

2025 CLC 922 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 16 & 39Hunting and trapping of wildlifeRestrictions

Legal restrictions imposed on hunting and trapping under Balochistan Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 2014 ('the Act, 2014')

Section 16 of the Act, 2014 provides that no person shall hunt any wild animal using a gun, drop spear, deadfall, explosive, gun trap, explosive projectile, bomb, grenade, baited book, net, snare or any other trap, an automatic weapon or a weapon of a caliber used by the Army or Police Force or through a projectile containing any drug or chemical substance, or hunt any game animal in the non-hunting period, or any game animal from a vehicle or conveyance from a distance less than two hundred meters; hunt with the help of decoys or call birds; or hunt with the help of playback recorded calls; or construct or use, to track any wild animal, any pitfall, game pit, or any fence or enclosure, or use any other similar contrivance; or hunt by hiding near a water hole or hunt after sunset or before sunrise.

2025 CLD 561 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.23Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12Suit for specific performance of agreement to sellRejection of plaintMortgaged propertyTransfer of assetsRestrictions

Plaintiff company sought specific performance of agreement to sell regarding suit properties which were mortgaged with bank as security for a finance facility

Defendant company sought rejection of plaint on the plea that the suit was not maintainable

Validity

Provision of S. 23 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, did not operate retrospectively and transfers that occurred prior to promulgation of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 were not to be treated as void

General restraints as contained in Ss. 23(1) & 23(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 could only set aside those registered transfers that had violated provisions of each of those subsections

Properties that were not furnished as security were not impacted by S. 23(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 prior to any decree passed and were valid transfers

Agreement of sale instituted for sale of a mortgaged property would be void under S. 23 of Contract Act, 1872 as the object of agreement of sale would be to defeat the provision of law i.e., S. 23 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Right of redemption may be recognized in the context of transfers subject to S. 23 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Jurisdiction to determine performance of agreement to sell as entered into between parties, in terms of Ss. 23(1) & 23(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 at all times vested with Banking Court and Civil Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain such suit

Plaint seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was barred under the provisions of Ss. 23(1) & 23(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and was liable to be rejected under the provisions of O.VII, R. 11(d), C.P.C.

High Court rejected the plaint seeking specific performance of agreement to sell under O. VII, R. 11(d), C.P.C. as jurisdiction to consider the performance on the agreement of sale in respect of mortgaged property vested in Banking Court under Ss.23(1) & 23(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Plaint was rejected in circumstances.

2022 PLD 773 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 19Freedom of speechFreedom of expressionRestrictionsReasonableness of restrictionsDefamation

Qualified privilege.

2020 PTD 213 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Para.4State Bank of Pakistan Circular No.33/2007 dated 29-09-2007Letter of CreditImport of vehicleRestrictionsChange in policyRetrospectivityPlaintiff imported old specialized vehicles and sought declaration against authorities to release said vehiclesPlea raised by authorities was that plaintiff was in violation of amended Import Policy Order

Plaintiff sought interim release of vehicles on grounds that same had been purchased prior to amendment in Import Policy and were only transported after amendment

Validity

Held, provisions of Para. 4 of Import Policy Order were applicable to such imports where Bill of Lading and Letter of Credit were established prior to issuance of amending order

Bill of Lading was subsequent in time to amendment in Import Policy, whereby, age limit of vehicle in question was restricted to five years and it was only on basis of Standby Letter of Credit that plaintiff sought relief

No protection was provided to any Standby Letter of Credit but only to Letters of Credit which were dealt with differently in banking industry

Matter of shipment was a private arrangement between plaintiff and supplier and once an amendment was in the knowledge, then there was no need to complete transaction

Supplier could have been requested not to make any shipment as there was enough time to withhold such shipments

No vested right existed as claimed by the plaintiff/importer

Bill of Lading in question did not involve banks in question which was normally a must in shipment affected on basis of irrevocable Letter of Credit

Goods Declaration in column of terms of payment stated that it was on collection of documents basis which was again contrary to terms of payment involved in imports through Letter of Credit

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as benefit of para 4 of Import Policy Order was not available to plaintiff

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 MLD 201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10, 11 & 41Transfer of propertyRestrictionsCaveat emptorPrincipleScope

Under provision of S.41 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 purchaser is saddled with extraordinary responsibility of taking care and caution and to deeply scrutinize genuineness or originality or legality of title of vendor before purchasing land under principle of caveat emptor subject to incidence of Ss. 10 & 11 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Any infirmity or deficiency in title found later will always travel with land and purchaser is precluded to subsequently raise plea of protection available under S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 rather they have to face rigors of their own committed negligence for non-conducting a bona fide and reasonable investigation into title of vendor under principle of caveat emptor.

2018 PLD 295 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 7Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 23 & 24Works of defenceUse of propertyRestrictionsPetitioner was owner of land within the radius of 1143 meters from Army Ammunition Depot

Petitioner was aggrieved of restriction imposed by notification dated 16.10.1979, whereby he could not change nature of his land without permission of Military Authorities

Validity

Till the time Ammunition Depots were functioning in inhabited localities, possibility could not be ruled out that any havoc could be played at any time in order to achieve designs of any stakeholders of adventurous nature

Inhabited localities must be saved from such dangerous dumps, which were situated within the residential areas and such depots, stores must be established outside the inhabited localities

Till the time such alternate arrangements were made, authorities concerned instead of imposing such unreasonable restrictions with reference to the areas outside boundary walls of Ammunition Depots must be bound down to acquire land, which was possibly would be affected from the effects of stocks stored in such Ammunition Depots

Such required land would be subject to land acquisition under law against which land owners were supposed to be compensated adequately as against the price of their land

Provisions of S.3 read with S.7 of Works of Defence Act, 1903, were in complete negation of the Constitutional guarantees provided under Arts.23 & 24 of the Constitution

High Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, was not supposed to leave people of Pakistan, who were subject to Constitution as helpless against atrocities of public functionaries

Rights and guarantees promised with people of Pakistan must practically be given effect beneficially to them and such rights must jealously be guarded

High Court provided period of one year to the authorities to arrange complete shifting of Ammunition Depot in question

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2013 PLD 75 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the ConstitutionRestrictionsLegality

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution could not be denuded or curtailed, and if an attempt was made the same would be unconstitutional.