Civil litigation

2025 MLD 633 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439Illegal dispossession of propertyAppreciation of evidenceCivil litigationScope

Allegation against accused/respondents was that they illegally dispossessed the applicant and his brother issuing threats of murder

Complaint filed by the applicant/complainant was dismissed

Validity

Record reflected that the applicant/complainant purchased the subject land from the respondent in November 2020 through a sale agreement dated 20-11-2020, and the possession thereof was handed over to the applicant/complainant at that time on part payment, while the remaining amount was to be paid by the applicant in installments

Execution of the agreement, part payment of consideration amount and the possession in pursuance of the sale agreement was admitted by respondent No 1

Possession of subject land was protected by law, even in cases where full ownership had not yet been transferred

Complainant had been in possession in pursuance of the sale agreement and no clause in the agreement explicitly allowed the respondent to reclaim possession forcibly in case the full payment had not been made

Respondent could not take possession by force

Instead, legal proceedings would have to be initiated

Forceful eviction of the complainant would generally be not permissible under law without a Court order

Record showed that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of agreement, possession and permanent injunction and the applicant also had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract, which was pending adjudication in the Civil Court

As long as the suits were pending, the Trial Court was the proper forum for resolving disputes regarding the terms and conditions of the sale agreement

Taking possession without the Court's order would violate the principle of due process, which ensured that legal disputes were settled through a fair trial, not force or unilateral action

Thus, no one was allowed to take possession by force while the suits were pending in the Court

Respondent must wait for the Court's decision on the matter and any dispossession without the Court's order was illegal and unlawful

Provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were applicable universally and were not confined solely to cases involving land grabbers or individuals with mala fide intent

Determination of civil rights, ownership, contractual obligations or any other related matters under the pending civil suit remained within the exclusive domain of the civil Court

Findings or directions in the present judgment shall not prejudice or influence the outcome of those proceedings

Civil Court shall independently adjudicate upon the issues before it based on the evidence and arguments presented in accordance with the applicable law, free from any inference drawn from this judgment

In view of the foregoing, the impugned order of the Trial Court was set aside

Cognizance of the matter was deemed to have been taken under the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Criminal revision petition was disposed of.

2023 MLD 437 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 35, 35-A & 34-B [as amended by Costs of Litigation Act (XVII of 2017)]Recovery of damages and litigation costsMalicious prosecutionCivil litigationScope

Dispute between parties related to right of appellant/defendant to continue to use a parcel of land adjacent to his property that respondent/plaintiff claimed was his

Validity

Held, there could be civil proceedings that had undermined right of liberty at an interlocutory or final stage or right to property and/or reputation such as in a claim alleging bankruptcy or failure to abide by financial obligations

Such civil claims, which raised questions regarding probity and honesty of conduct of a claimant, could have consequences for reputation of such claimant, which might not be made whole simply by grant of litigation costs at the end of proceedings

Such was in the context of civil proceedings of such nature (which infringe upon the right to liberty and/or dignity/ reputation and property of a party forced to defend his/her conduct in civil proceedings) that had inflicted damage on appellant/defendant that could lead to a claim for malicious prosecution of civil proceedings

Nature of proceedings between parties was not such that could possibly undermine liberty or reputation of respondent/plaintiff

One of the ingredients in the test for malicious prosecution was not satisfied to the extent that respondent/plaintiff had incurred financial costs during civil proceedings in question

Appropriate remedy for relevant Court was to grant costs to respondent/plaintiff under provisions of Ss. 35, 35-A & 35-B, C.P.C. as amended through Costs of Litigation Act, 2017

For purposes of recovering litigation costs and/or costs in relation to any inconvenience suffered by respondent/plaintiff, no independent cause of action for recovery of damages for tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings accrued to respondent/plaintiff

Mere failure of one party to prove a civil claim did not create automatic right for contesting party to bring suit for malicious prosecution

To find otherwise could function as a major deterrent discouraging citizens from employing process of law to try their rights and could become a fetter on the right of access to justice, apart from creating further litigation even after the matter was laid to rest in civil proceedings

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 MLD 1808 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 492-B &492-CProhibition of grabbing of propertyCivil litigationComplaint filed against the grabbing of land was dismissed by the Trial Court

Observation made by the Court below was that dispute between parties was of civil nature and parties were already under litigation before competent forum and complainant might have some right enforceable through civil Court but she had no right to put the criminal law in motion

Validity

Where an Act entailed civil liability under civil law as well as criminal penalty under criminal law, a person could be tried under both kinds of proceedings which were independent to each other

Thus, the ground of civil litigation between the parties, narrated by Court below in the impugned order, could not be made basis for dismissal of complaint, hence, the impugned order to that extent was not maintainable

Appeal was allowed by setting aside impugned order and matter was remanded for decision afresh after adopting proper procedure for making an inquiry upon the complaint, in circumstances.

2022 MLD 444 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406, 380, 448Criminal breach of trust, theft in a dwelling house and house trespassPre-arrest bail, confirmation ofCivil litigationOn a dispute of Rs.2,000,000/-between the parties, complainant got a case registered against accusedValidityCivil litigation was pending adjudication between parties

Accused filed a suit against complainant and as a counterblast complainant had lodged FIR in order to convert civil liability into criminal

Such exercise to harass, blackmail, humiliate and pressurize accused to complete nefarious designs of complainant was not permitted under law

Culpability of accused in offences under Ss.380 & 448, P.P.C. could be determined by Trial Court after recording and evaluating of evidence

Object of pre-arrest bail was to save innocent persons from humiliating, harassment and incarceration on the basis of false implication

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed, in circumstances.

2019 PCrLJ 1622 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 405 & 406Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionQuashing of FIRCriminal breach of trustCivil litigationScope

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR wherein complainant had claimed that he had invested a certain sum of amount in the joint business with the petitioner and in that respect a written partnership deed was also executed between the parties

Business of the parties was, later on, closed and the petitioner returned partial amount to the complainant, however, he did not pay the profit of joint business or returned the remaining principal amount to the complainant

Validity

Present case was of civil nature regarding recovery of money or rendition of accounts but the complainant had lodged FIR by merely mentioning a single sentence therein that the petitioner had promised to keep the remaining amount of the complainant as a trust with him and the same would be returned as and when desired by complainant

Nowhere in the partnership deed was mentioned that amount invested by the complainant would remain as a trust

Provisions of S. 405, P.P.C. punishable under S. 406, P.P.C. were not attracted to the case

First Information Report was quashed.

2018 MLD 142 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.22-A & 22-BRegistration of criminal caseCivil litigation

Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his application by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby he had sought registration of criminal case

Validity

Ongoing dispute existed as to status of land in possession of petitioner and others, in as much as the said property was being claimed by Irrigation Department as was its property

Such was crux of dispute and rightly discerned by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and the same was primary motive for institution of criminal proceedings

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had rightly not directed registration of FIR

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 MLD 666 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Civil litigationScope

One could sue for being prosecuted in civil legal process for recovery of damages under "malicious prosecution" but ingredients shall be the same.

2013 PCrLJ 1583 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324Pre-arrest bail, cancellation ofAttempt to commit qatl-e-amdCivil litigation

Trial Court granted pre-arrest bail to accused on two grounds i.e. affidavits of injured witnesses and existence of civil dispute between parties

Validity

Both the grounds were capricious and whimsical and were of no avail to accused, as one of the deponents admitted time, place and mode of occurrence, while the other deponent was not eye-witness of occurrence

Existence of civil dispute between parties could not be considered a relevant factor for concession of anticipatory bail because it could have been also a motive to motivate accused for commission of alleged offence

Prima facie available data suggested believing that accused had committed a non-bailable offence, thus he was not entitled for extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail

If guilt of accused had been established through reliable evidence or bail granting order was perverse, capricious or whimsical, then it could be reversed at any time and interest of justice also demanded that fair handed treatment should be meted out to prosecution

High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court granting pre-arrest bail to accused

Bail was cancelled in circumstances.