Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Purpose and requirements meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Purpose and requirements

Purpose and requirements legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2014 PCrLJ 865 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Ss. 221, 222, 223 & 224Framing of chargePurpose and requirements

Purpose of framing of charge was commencement of trial, to make accused aware, abreast and alert about the allegations and the basis on which allegations were levelled against him

Charge should contain all material particulars as to time, place, the specific name of the alleged offence, the manner in which offence was committed and particulars of the accused to afford him opportunity to explain the matter with which he was charged

Charge should be read over and explained to the accused and then he should be asked whether he was guilty or wanted any defence to make.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Purpose and requirements", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124945231

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Purpose and requirements"

MLD 2012
2011-November-29

2012 M L D 396

GHULAM HUSSAIN MEMON — Petitioner Versus Messrs SHAH ABDUL LATIF EDUCATION through Honorary Secretary and another — Respondents

Court: Sindh
PCRLJ 1989
Criminal Revision No. 28 of 1989, decided on 15th April, 1989.

1989 P Cr

IRSHAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Court: Quetta
PTD 2005
N/A

2005 P T D 891

Messrs MIANSONS COTTON FACTORY (PVT LTD through Chief Executive Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAHAWALPUR ZONE, BAHAWALPUR

Court: Lahore of High Court
CLC 2020
2019-July-26

2020 C L C 60

SULTAN-UL-ULOOM, MIR USMAN ALI KHAN ACADEMY, through Secretary — Petitioner Versus ANIS-UR-REHMAN and another — Respondents

Court: Sindh
CLC 1987
Civil Revisions Nos. 145, 956 and 1145 of 1979, decided on 4th October, 1980.

1987 C L C 2398

ABDUL HAMID and 4 others‑ ‑Petitioners Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and 4 others‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
SCMR 2009
----S. 92 & O. XXIX, R.1---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Private trust---Permission of Advocate-General---Principles---Signing of pleadings---New plea, raising of---Administration of justice---Rules of procedure---Scope---Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was reversed by Lower Appellate Court solely on the ground that the suit had been filed in violation of S.92 C.P.C.---Validity---Direction of Advocate General was not required in private disputes where Trust was alleged to have been established unlawfully for the purpose of usurping a particular property belonging to and/or under the control of any other person or corporate entity---Marked difference was between prayers in the suit filed by appellant and provisions of S.92 C.P.C. which was designed for protection of and administration of trusts created for public purpose and required consent of Advocate General before filing suit to obtain decrees relating to eight kinds of reliefs mentioned therein, in which public at large would be interested---No specific objection having been taken by respondent regarding competency of person who signed and verified plaint to do so either in written statement or in evidence produced before Trial Court, such objection could not be taken at appellate stage---Had such objection been taken, it would have been rectified by appellant by producing requisite authority to sign and verify the plaint---Absence to have authority to sign pleadings was mere an irregularity which could be set at right and could not be made basis of non-suiting a litigant---Matter should be decided on merits and not dismissed on technicalities, which even otherwise could not be substantiated---Rules of procedure were framed to foster the cause of justice and not to hamper it unless any party was prejudiced by any violation of the same---Such rules should not stand in the way of dispensation of justice---Judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and maintained by High Court in revisional jurisdiction was set aside by Supreme Court and case was remanded to Lower Appellate Court for decision afresh on merits---Appeal was allowed.

2009 SCMR 574

KATHIAWAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. — Petitioner Versus MACCA MASJID TRUST and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PCRLJ 2014
2013-July-25

2014 P Cr

GHULAM QADIR — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Sindh
SCMR 2011
Civil Appeals Nos. 400 and 401 of 2006, decided on 21st July, 2011.

2011 S C M R 1856

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Coordination Officer, Okara and others — Appellants Versus MARKET COMMITTEE, OKARA through Chairman/Secretary — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
MLD 2013
2012-December-7

2013 M L D 640

KANDAWALLA TRUST through Trustees and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Sindh
MLD 1993
R.SAs. Nos. 123 and 124 of 1982, decided on 18th July 1992.

1993 M L D 247

Mst. UMATULLAH and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore

Dictionary Search

Advertisement

Explore Legal Library

Pakistan Law Portal is an advanced digital repository of legal precedents, statutes, and judicial terms. Utilize citation search or keywords to discover relevant case law.

Back to Library