Nature of proceedings

2022 PLD 766 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 4Nature of proceedingDuty of CourtScope

Partition suits were different from the other civil suits as in partition suits parties had already established their right of ownership in the property

Main purpose of partition suit was to settle down the certain part/share of each sharer, according to their entitlement

Civil Court was responsible to see that nobody/share-holder be deprived in any way from his/her legal right.

2017 PLD 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(a)(v) & 17(b)Proceedings of Trial CourtNature of proceedingsInquisitorial/AdversarialAssets beyond known sources of incomeScopeTrial Court on its own cannot adopt inquisitorial proceedings to calculate known sources of income in the judgment

Trial Court is simply required to weigh prosecution evidence and to see as to whether it has successfully proved the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

2015 CLD 983 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Public interest litigationScopeNature of proceedingsProceedings of public interest were inquisitorial, rather than adversarial

Public interest litigation, therefore, was not about personal interests and benefits but about public interest and welfare.

2015 PCrLJ 1329 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 561-A & 190(c)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 34Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amdhurt and common intentionCognizance of offenceNature of proceedingsApplication for quashment of orderInherent powers of High CourtScope

Police finding accused innocent during investigation, released him under S. 169, Cr.P.C., but Magistrate taking cognizance of offence against all the accused persons, refused to release the accused (applicant)

Complainant, daughter of deceased, supported statement of accused (applicant) that he had been mistakenly implicated in the case, due to which she had lodged second FIR against real culprits

Validity

No eye-witness had implicated the accused (applicant)

Magistrate had not looked into record before him and passed impugned order without deliberating on statement of complainant

Judicial Magistrate was not bound to agree with report submitted by police under S. 173, Cr.P.C., and he was at liberty either to agree or disagree with conclusions reached by investigating officer subject to giving cogent reason for conclusion arrived at by him and his conclusion must have been laced with evidence showing application of judicial mind

Statements of eye-witnesses were sufficient to establish that prima facie prosecution had no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the case

Trial of applicant, in circumstances, would amount unnecessary harassment to him and proceedings before trial court would be abuse of process of law

High Court setting aside order of Magistrate quashed proceedings of trial to the extent of accused-applicant

Application was accepted accordingly.

2015 PCrLJ 1329 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 173 & 190(c)Police report under S. 173, Cr.P.C.Cognizance of offenceNature of proceedingsDuty of MagistrateTaking cognizance of offence is a judicial act

Judicial Magistrate is not bound to agree with report submitted by police under S. 173, Cr.P.C., and he is at liberty either to agree or disagree with conclusions reached by investigating officer subject to giving cogent reason for conclusion arrived at by him and his conclusion must be laced with evidence showing application of judicial mind.

2013 PLD 343 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)Quo warranto, writ ofNature of proceedingsLocus standi of petitionerScope

Proceedings of writ of quo warranto were not strictly adversarial in nature and could be put into motion by any person (who need not be aggrieved)

Said proceedings, therefore, carried an inquisitorial rigour to protect the "public office" and, more importantly, the public institution behind it.

2013 PLC(CS) 625 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)Quo warranto, writ ofNature of proceedingsLocus standi of petitionerScope

Proceedings of writ of quo warranto were not strictly adversarial in nature and could be put into motion by any person (who need not be aggrieved)

Said proceedings, therefore, carried an inquisitorial rigour to protect the "public office" and, more importantly, the public institution behind it.