Precondition

When a minor upon reaching majority is found to be incapacitated or otherwise unable to earn due to physical or mental limitations the father remains bound to maintain him.

Plaintiff can only be allowed to withdrawn the suit or abandon part of the claim if he succeeds in establishing that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect.

Case is remanded when a decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary.

Declaratory decree can only be passed to the effect of a pre-existing right which is being denied by some person.

Earlier suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was withdrawn unilaterally thereafter they filed instant suit for implementing a promise made by appellant/defendant in earlier proceedings

Trial Court rejected the plaint but Lower Appellate Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh

Validity

Statement was given in absence of opponent party and even without any notice on application to withdraw earlier suit

Compromise could become effective only when the two or more parties agreed to settle a real or supposed claim in which each party had surrendered something in concession to each other

Unilateral statement given by respondents/plaintiffs and that too in absence of other side could not be taken as mutual concession or mutual promise, having any binding effect, especially when statement regarding so-called out of court compromise was not backed by any document

Such statement did not fulfill requirements of O. XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C., which necessitated satisfaction of the Court

If such an easy way of escaping restriction contained in O. XXIII, R. 1(3), C.P.C. by simply giving unilateral statement as to compromise was permitted, the very purpose of the provision of O. XXIII, C.P.C., would be negated

High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Author of report has to appear in Trial Court as witness and to be subjected to cross examination without which his evidence is inadmissible and such fact remains not proved.

While exercising jurisdiction in terms of Art.199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution, High Court has to satisfy itself that a person who has been taken into custody by Law Enforcement Agencies was taken so with due process of law and custody of detenu is backed by some legal authority.

Nature of instrument used in occurrence is also an important factor to determine intention of accused.

Prosecution was bound to prove essential elements of mens rea and intention to commit an offence under S.9(a)(vi) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

If any of said two element are missing, offence is not committed.

If harm, infirmity or injury caused by perpetrator ends with death of victim, he can only be convicted under S.302 P.P.C. and not for kind/nature of injury caused by him

Such an accused can only be indicted with accusation of committing qatl-i-amd and can in no manner be charged with nature of hurt caused by him

When accused persons cannot be charged or convicted for causing hurt through corrosive substance then case does not attract mischief of Item 4(iv) of Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

When a provision of law is couched with penal consequences, then such a provision is considered as mandatory.

Justice of Peace before passing any order for registering of F.I.R. must put other party on notice against whom registration of F.I.R. is asked for.

Discretion to be structured and exercised justly, fairly and in transparent manner.

Primary condition is that land occupied by any person continuously for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 should first be offered for sale to such person unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land

Such is condition precedent to be met before determination of purchase price and other requirements.

To be a bona fide purchaser, a party has to prove not having notice of actuality along with the element of reasonable inquiry made on his part

Such is not only limited to factual aspects but includes legal element.

Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and is only available in cases where there has been mala fide on part of complainant or police.

Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue court invoke, S.122(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for acquiring jurisdiction to amend order under S.122(4) read with S.122(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as the case may be.

When auction is not postponed for more than 30 days, requirement of fresh proclamation under O.XXI, R.69, C.P.C. is not applicable.

Legal issue can be decided even by High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction, when sufficient evidence is available on record.

Before making an order for placing of a person's name on Exit Control List, it is not necessary under S. 2(2) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 for Federal Government to afford an opportunity of showing cause to person whose name is to be placed on Exit Control List

Such provision cannot be construed as an open licence to authorities to place any citizen's name on Exit Control List without affording an opportunity of hearing to person concerned

Opportunity of hearing is an essential postulate of due process recognized in Arts. 2-A, 4 & 10-A of the Constitution.

Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and sufficient cause must be beyond the control of a party concerned and nothing has to be deemed to be in good faith which is not done with due care and attention

Such are the standards which have to be borne in mind while dilating upon and adjudicating such issues.

Petitioners claimed that they had been in possession of land in question since partition of subcontinent and sought its allotment in their favors

Application filed by petitioners was dismissed by settlement authorities

Validity

Under the Scheme for Disposal of Unallotted, Unoccupied and Occupied Agricultural Evacuee Land, Lahore, framed under S.3(1)(b) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, the agricultural land was to be disposed of in favour of the person who was in continuous possession for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif, 1973

Khasra Girdawari appended with the petition showed that petitioners had been in possession since 1976-77

No document or Khasra Girdawari appended with possession showed that petitioners were in continuous possession for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif, 1973

Petitioners were not entitled for purchase of land in question under the Scheme for Disposal of Unallotted, Unoccupied and Occupied Agricultural Evacuee Land, Lahore

Performa (Annexure K) filed by revenue authorities showed that predecessor-in-interest of petitioners remained in possession from Kharif, 1976 till 29-12-2004

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners were nowhere mentioned to be in possession of land prior to Kharif, 1973

Petitioners were not entitled to get benefit of the Scheme for Disposal of Unallotted, Unoccupied and Occupied Agricultural Evacuee Land, Lahore

Petitioners failed to produce any allotment order and could not point out any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by settlement authorities

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Sine qua non for filing writ of mandamus that petitioner should have an interest in performance of duty and must have approached authorities for the same.

Causing Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Shajjah-i-Mudihah, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, rioting

Acquittal of accused under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.

Precondition

Prosecution witnesses remained present before the Trial Court, but their deposition could not be recorded on one pretext or the other

Even on the date the impugned order was passed, the witnesses were present

Counsel for the complainant contended that the evidence should have been recorded in the presence of the complainant, (who was absent on the said date); and the Trial Court being annoyed over the said request, acquitted accused persons without giving notice to the prosecution and hearing the complainant

Hearing of the prosecutor and accused, as well, was precondition to the order of acquittal under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court had violated that mandatory provisions of Cr.P.C.; by not hearing the prosecutor before passing impugned order, which had indicated that no opportunity was given to the prosecution of being heard; and in an unsound and hasty manner, accused persons were acquitted

Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to take up the proceedings afresh from the stage at which impugned order was passed.