Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Summery proceedings meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Summery proceedings

Summery proceedings legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2017 CLD 35 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
S.4Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2 & 7Suit for recovery of moneySummery proceedingsPromissory notePre-conditionsSuit filed by plaintiff for recovery of money was decreed in her favour by Trial Court

Plea raised by defendant was that promissory note relied upon by plaintiff was in fact an agreement and did not fulfil essential ingredients provided under S. 4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, therefore, he was prejudiced by trial

Validity

Disputed promissory note was titled to be an Iqrar Nama and also referred to an arrangement regarding transfer of property to a third party, therefore, the same could not be intended by its maker to be a promissory note

Defendant was acknowledging his debt and undertook payment to plaintiff and had also promised to transfer specific piece of land to a third person

Such promissory note could be termed as an acknowledgement of debt or an agreement between parties but the same could not practicably be negotiable by plaintiff

Disputed promissory note was not promissory note within the contemplation of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Trial Court granted leave to defendant and thereafter a proper trial followed within the contemplation of O. XXXVII, R. 7, C.P.C.

Defendant was provided with all opportunity to produce evidence to rebut claim of plaintiff

If Trial Court proceeded to decide the case in summary manner, within the purview of O. XXXVII, R. 2, C.P.C., a case could have been made out in favour of defendant to have been prejudiced

When Trial Court proceeded with suit as an ordinary trial by providing both parties to produce their pro and contra evidence, no question of prejudice to either party could be raised

High Court modified judgment and decree passed by Trial Court only to the extent of charging of interest from the date of filing of suit instead of date of signing of promissory note

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Summery proceedings", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124958605

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Summery proceedings"

PCRLJ 2017
2016-October-19

2017 P Cr

SHOUKAT RASHEED and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE through NAB — Respondent

Court: Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
MLD 2014
2013-September-2

2014 M L D 146

JAHANGIR CHEEMA — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SARGODHA and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLD 2017
2016-August-12

2017 C L D 35

LIAQAT ALI KHAN — Appellant Versus Mst. SHAFAQ UROOJ — Respondent

Court: Peshawar
CLC 2022
N/A

2022 C L C 1925

SARDAR ALI — Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)
MLD 2016
N/A

2016 M L D 1180

Mst. WAZIRAN and another — Petitioners/Applicants Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary, Government of Sindh and 10 others — Respondents

Court: Sindh
CLC 2020
merit or under S.89-A of C.P.C. then it did not create a bar in the way of seeking ejectment of tenant nor same rendered the ejectment petition not maintainable---Even one of co-sharers could file an application for ejectment of tenant---Interim order of Rent Controller could not be assailed under constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances

2020 C L C 1286

Haji MUKARRAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus Haji BADSHAH KHAN and others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar (Mingora Bench)
PLD 2013
2012-September-11

P L D 2013 Lahore 61

NAUSHER ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AHMAD and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
MLD 2017
2016-May-4

2017 M L D 132

IMTIAZ ALI — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary and 8 others — Respondents

Court: Sindh (Sukkur Bench)
PLC(CS)N 2018
W.P. No.269, C. Misc. No.540 of 2017, C.O.C. No.2 and C. Misc. No.27 of 2018, decided on 9th April, 2018.

2018 P L C (C

Mst. NOOR-UL-AIN and others Versus PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN/PRESIDENT PAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY through President's Secretariat Islamabad and others

Court: Gilgit Baltistan High Court
PTD 2011
----Ss.10(4), 11, 2(14), 7, 8(1), 26, 33(17), 36, 37 & 67---Sales Tax Refund Rules 2006, R.37---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.163---Refund of input tax---Finding of facts gathered from one case was applied to the cases of 17 different registered persons/refund claimants without giving consideration or applying judicial mind to the case of all those including the appellant---Taxpayer was charged for violations (not committed by himself) under different sections of Sales Tax Act, 1990with threat for punishment by rejection of his lawful refund claims, which were unlawfully rejected---Taxpayer contended that mischief of S.10(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was not liable to adjudication, as such mischief did not fell within the scope of S.11 or S.36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; and virtually no mischief under S.11 or S.36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was warranted and the proceedings of adjudication carried on in the case were nothing except futile exercise being unauthorized and void ab initio and non-existent in the eyes of law; and refund was applied for only but nothing was refunded at the crucial time of notice or adjudication; and, adjudication was unauthorized as no mischief of S.36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was warranted---Validity---Held, there was no independent finding rather finding on the appropriate facts of the case in Order-in-Appeal---No judicial mind was applied while passing the Order-in-Original---No rebuttal or rejection was offered by the department to the documents presented by the appellant, which proved that the documents submitted by the appellant for removal of the objections were in order and admissible, which were not adhered to---Every case was an independent one for findings of facts, findings on fact may be given on existence of facts in each case and proved by evidence, not by surmises and conjectures and applying findings of facts of another person---Each and every case would be decided on its own peculiar circumstances of facts---No one should be penalized for violations of other registered persons---Infrastructure founded on void order and proceedings were void and non-existent in the eyes of law---Appellant was entitled for immediate release of his held-up refund claims as well as delayed for refund surcharge under S.67 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, workable since the last date of the statutory period as envisaged under S.10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 till the date of payment.

2011 P T D (Trib

Messrs SALFI TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR (APPEALS) and others

Court: Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan

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