Guidelines

2024 MLD 684 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O.VII, R. 11Rejection of plaintCause of action, disclosure ofAverments of the plaint, analyzing ofGuidelinesDocuments not annexed with the plaintEffect

Suit for recovery of damages etc. against the director/principal of the college for his alleged inability of plaintiff's migration/admission to a foreign university

Trial Court rejected the plaint of the plaintiff allowing the application moved by the defendants, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court

Contention of the petitioner/plaintiff was that the contents of plaint were to be considered as true and the suit was to be decided on merit

Validity

For disclosure of cause of action, being one of the four grounds contained in the Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it is the plaint and the plaint alone that must disclose a cause of action

Phrase 'cause of action' is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

A cause of action constitutes bundle of facts, which if traversed , the plaintiff has to prove

For rejection of a plaint condensed guidelines are: firstly, only requirement is that Court must examine the statement in the plaint prior to taking a decision ;secondly, the contents of the written-statement are not to be examined; thirdly, while carrying out an analysis of the averments contained in the plaint, the Court is not denuded of its normal judicial power to critically consider the averments of plaint as well as documents annexed to the plaint

In the present case, in view of the said guideline for the carrying out an analysis of the averments contained in the plaint, all the claims (request for migration, issuance of NOC, payments etc.) as averred in the plaint , all which he might prove, the same would not grant success to the petitioner/plaintiff entitling him to a relief including damages for mental Agony

Reason being that the petitioner/plaintiff having opted for admission abroad had nothing to do with mental shock and agony by the respondents

Petitioner/plaintiff had not annexed any documents in respect of the payments he made

Petitioner's plea for recovery of Rs. 7.0 million as fee of lawyer was an unbelievably exorbitant amount of money and miscellaneous expenses were not supported by any documentary proof, nor were the details of the damages jotted down in the plaint

No illegality or irregularity was noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below while rejecting plaint of the petitioner/plaintiff

Revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 CLD 1069 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.10(2)Deceptive marketing practiceAdvertisement contentImpactGuidelines

Ordinary consumers are unlikely to investigate types of laboratory tests conducted to substantiate claims made about a product

Such consumers are primarily attracted to bold advertising claims displayed on packaging and in TV Commercials and readily rely upon highly appealing descriptions

It is essential that claims made are clearly and conspicuously qualified to justify their reliability and validity in wide spectrum of real life social conditions.

2020 PCrLJ 880 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 7Determination of age of accusedGuidelinesCourt was to hold an inquiry whenever it was confronted with question of age of an accused person

Court should feel free to requisition the original record, summon and examine the authors/custodians of record to determine its genuineness

Court could summon persons, if need be, who on account of some special knowledge could depose about the age of accused person and could take further steps in reaching a just conclusion

Issue about determination of age of accused was of vital significance

Court was not to decide the issue in a summary or slipshod manner.

2018 PLD 296 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 19Media reporting of court proceedingsGuidelines

Media should not dilate on a sub judice case, rather should only accurately report the proceedings; however, once a judgment was announced it may be analyzed, evaluated or critiqued.

2016 PTD 2866 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 25(5)(b)Method of assessmentNotes/recommendationsGuidelines

Petitioner was exporter of goods to foreign countries and its grievance was about calculation of export value assessed by authorities on the basis of notes and recommendations instead of under S. 25(5)(b) of Customs Act, 1969

Validity

Provisions of law and not notes or recommendations, if any should be adhered to

Such notes or recommendations could only be considered as guidelines, where no proper method of valuation/assessment was available before customs officials

When basis of valuation or assessment was provided, such provisions of law had to be complied with in letter and spirit

Authorities were swayed away U.O. Note and they ignored provisions of S. 25 of Customs Act, 1969 while making valuation/assessment which could not be done

Customs authorities had to make assessment/ valuation on the basis of provisions of S. 25 of Customs Act, 1969, which was missing

High Court directed customs authorities to make a fresh assessment/valuation of exported goods as per provisions of S.25 of Customs Act, 1969 as the same was prevalent at the time of assessment/valuation and the same should be based on cogent reasons after giving proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2015 YLR 2488 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Interim reliefGuidelinesRules of discipline, adherence to

Plaintiffs succeeded in getting interim relief that was to sit in the final professional examination against rules and regulations of defendants/Medical University

Court observed that such laxity and latitude became great problem not only for Institution/defendants but also for courts

If leniency was excluded then everything would come into right direction because the Institution and the students both had to follow the rules of discipline made for that purpose

Courts also had to follow the rules of discipline for smooth sailing of the entire process

Good professionals could only be produced when rules of discipline were followed

If there was a question of leniency in favour of students for securing their precious time, that should also have been within the parameters and frame work of law.

2014 SCMR 164 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 17Lambardar, appointment ofGuidelinesPreference to a candidate having higher education than the othersScope

Factors referred to in R.17 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 being guidelines must be kept in mind by Revenue Officer while selecting suitable person as Lambardar amongst candidates

Level of education of a candidate, though not finding mention in R.17 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 as one of factors to be taken into account, could be one of considerations by Revenue Officer while making such appointment

Totality of virtues, qualifications and experience of candidate would weigh in process of such appointment.

2013 PLD 501 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3-APunjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 3-AKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S.5Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974), S. 3(3)Sindh Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, Rr.23 & 24Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 212(1)(a), 9 & 184(3)Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the ConstitutionFederal and Provincial Service TribunalsComposition of BenchesGuidelines

Supreme Court observed that the Chairman should preferably constitute each bench comprising of one judicial/legal Member and one Member from civil service; that in such a situation, with reference to the disputes of civil servants, both (Members) could give their input on the judicial and executive sides, which would improve the quality of decision making and the judgments pronounced and strengthen the independence of judiciary in its role of enforcing the Fundamental Right of access to justice, and that where a single Member Bench was to be constituted, preference should be given to the judicial Member to hold the hearing.

2013 PLC(CS) 1308 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3-APunjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.3-AKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S.5Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974), S. 3(3)Sindh Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, Rr.23 & 24Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.212(1)(a), 9 & 184(3)Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the ConstitutionFederal and Provincial Service TribunalsComposition of BenchesGuidelines

Supreme Court observed that the Chairman should preferably constitute each bench comprising of one judicial/legal Member and one Member from civil service; that in such a situation, with reference to the disputes of civil servants, both (Members) could give their input on the judicial and executive sides, which would improve the quality of decision making and the judgments pronounced and strengthen the independence of judiciary in its role of enforcing the Fundamental Right of access to justice, and that where a single Member Bench was to be constituted, preference should be given to the judicial Member to hold the hearing.