Remedy

Proper recourse ordinarily is to assail final order of competent revenue authority by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, rather than embarking upon a parallel and protracted civil trial.

However, it is equally settled that once a remedy is elected and exhausted, the law does not permit the litigant to invoke a parallel or successive remedy before another forum on the same cause of action

This doctrine not only prevents forum shopping but also ensures finality in litigation

Multiplicity of proceedings undermines judicial discipline and opens doors to conflicting outcomes.

Civil Court cannot be approached directly without exhausting the highest forum in the hierarchy under special law.

Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIAC) is a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) in terms of State Owned Enterprise (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023, and pursuant to S. 38 of Federal Excise Act, 2005 read with S. 134A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, a mechanism has been provided for SOE to approach Federal Board Revenue (FBR) in respect of adverse orders passed by the Inland Revenue Department ; it is mandatory for SOE to go for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) , whereas the limit of Rs. 50 Million is not applicable ; which is applicable in the matter of Applicant (PIAC) being a SOE ; and matter may be referred to Dispute Resolution Committee (Committee)

High Court referred to the matter to FBR to form a Committee for final decision

Special Federal Excise Reference Application was disposed of accordingly.

Once choice is exercised and election is made then such party is precluded from launching another proceedings to seek a relief or remedy contrary to what would be claimed and or achieved by adopting other proceeding/action and or remedy, which in legal parlance is recognized as “doctrine of election”.

Powers of Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) to alter the date of birth of in-service employees of Balochistan High Court

Scope

Matter relating to terms and conditions of service

Remedy

Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) altered the date birth of in-service employees of Balochistan High Court Establishment

Validity

Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) was constituted to facilitate and dispose of the pension cases of retired civil servants which could not be disposed of by the administrative departments because of loss/tempering of service book, clerical error, alteration in date of birth or objection raised on the pension cases by the Accountant General Balochistan

Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) had changed the dates of birth of certain employees of Balochistan High Court Establishment without any jurisdiction and lawful authority

Services of the employees of Establishment of Balochistan High Court were governed under the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 (Rules, 2020), thus, relevant provisions relating to date of birth of an employee of the High Court establishment required judicial examination

As per R.10 of the Rules, 2020, date of birth of an employee shall be final if once entered in the record and it can only be challenged within one year of his entry in service

For matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of an employee of High Court Establishment, forum of Appellate Authority had been defined under R.46 of the Rules, 2020

Scrutiny of the orders/decisions of the PCDC in respect of change of date of birth of in-service employees of High Court Establishment and others showed that the incorporation of wrong dates of birth into the SAP system of Accountant General's Office had also been taken into account which was otherwise an illegality and irregularity warranting interference by High Court

Constitutional petition was disposed of declaring the decision of PCDC as to change of date of birth of employees of High Court as of no legal effect and were set aside and their dates of births were restored.

Remedy available to an aggrieved civil servant is to approach the Balochistan Service Tribunal through filing a service appeal under S.4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974

Date of birth of a serving public servant in his/her service record or service book is one of the terms and conditions of his/her service and matter pertaining to change and alteration of such date of birth amounts to service matter within the purview of Art. 212(1)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, which placed an embargo upon the jurisdiction of other ordinary Courts and authorities such as Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) to entertain service matters

Constitutional petition was disposed of.

Court of law can counter deliberate attempts for prolonging delays and causing abuse of process of a Court, in two ways; first to avoid unnecessary and undue leniency in the matter of setting aside those orders where the Court reaches a conclusion that the other party has deliberately absented themselves or defaulted in performance of some activities, required for further progress of suit, without any reasonable cause; secondly, when the Court is of the opinion that a party has defaulted in its duty vis-a-viz progress of suit but the Court considers that interest of justice would be served by affording further chances, then the Court should levy cost which should be sufficient for fully compensating the other party for the time and money spent by it in procuring legal assistance as well as the inconvenience caused to it due to delay in the proceedings

Imposing proper and reasonable amount of cost in such cases would not only ensure justice to affected parties but would also be working as deterrence for the party, which deliberately and maliciously employ delaying tactics, which causes undue delay in litigation

Genuine cases where a party is prevented by sufficient cause in attending to a step in litigation should however be treated differently and in such cases lenient approach should be adopted.

Petitioner / husband was aggrieved of quantum of amount of dowery articles while respondent / minor assailed finding of Lower Appellate Court which reduced maintenance allowance from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month

Contention of petitioner / husband was that Nikah Khawan/ Registrar unauthorizedly incorporated certain entries in Nikahnama, which were not settled between the parties

Validity

If Nikah Khawan/Registrar mentioned un-settled conditions in Nikah Nama, petitioner could conveniently approach Deputy Commissioner or authorities of Local Government concerned for rectification in addition to putting criminal machinery in motion by filing a complaint before relevant authority

Nikah Khawan/Registrar fell within the definition of "public servant" in terms of section 21 of Penal Code, 1860

Petitioner / husband could not take premium of inaction on his part, as he did not refer to any material to show that he had challenged entries of Nikah Nama before the relevant forum

Father of respondent / wife was owner of reasonable chunk of land at the time of marriage between parties and he was in a position to give dowry articles worth Rs.200,000/- to his daughter

There was custom in the locality that daughters were given dowry articles at the time of their marriage

High Court declined to interfere in findings of both the courts below on the point of dowry articles

High Court set aside findings of Lower Appellate Court on the point of maintenance of respondent / minor and restored that of Trial Court

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Record showed that initially, FIR of the present case was lodged by the applicant/complainant and the same was challaned after investigation

Trial Court/Sessions Court after full dress trial acquitted the accused and directed the complainant/informer to award compensation to accused, who dragged him in a false and frivolous criminal case

Show cause notice to pay compensation was issued to complainant for bringing a false and vexatious case on the board

Subsequently, the reply to the notice issued to the applicant/complainant by Trial Court was found to be unsatisfactory which resulted in passing the impugned order

Bare reading of the S.250, Cr.P.C reflected that only the magistrate in magisterial trial was empowered to invoke S.250, Cr.P.C and not the other Courts

Thus, the order of Trial Court was without jurisdiction, therefore, the same being illegal was set-aside

Criminal revision application was allowed accordingly.

Once an aggrieved person chooses orelect a forum amongst the available remedies under any law then he cannot resort to other available remedy midway.

Remedy of ICA has been provided to a person aggrieved by a decision of a Single Judge rendered in exercise of civil original jurisdiction

According to proviso to S. 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the remedy of Intra Court Appeal is not available if the constitutional petition filed before the High Court in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution arose out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against the original order

Appellant admittedly assailed the orders passed by the Competent Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority in the constitutional petition, thus, the bar contained under proviso to S.3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, came into play and impeded the way of the appellant to maintain such appeal

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appeal is filed on question of law and facts in the light of S.418, Cr.P.C., whereas in criminal revision only correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order is to be seen

Criminal revision is not competent against the order of acquittal, because, it is prohibited according to S.439(4)(a) Cr.P.C.

In complaint proceedings, an application under S.249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C), filed by the respondent was allowed on the assertion that he had already divorced the complainant

Complainant filed a criminal revision under S.439-A, Cr.P.C., before the Court of Session, which was dismissed

Petitioner/complainant filed constitutional petition against both the said orders

Question was whether the order of acquittal under S.249-A, Cr.P.C., was amenable to criminal revision or the same was assailable before the High Court through a petition for special leave to appeal as provided under S.417(2), Cr.P.C.

Held that while providing appeal in case of acquittal under S.417 of Cr.P.C., S.417(2), Cr.P.C., stipulates that “If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court”

Likewise by virtue of S.439(5), Cr.P.C., there is bar on the revisional jurisdiction of the court in cases where remedy of appeal is provided under the Cr. P.C.

Thus ,acquittal order passed under S.249-A, Cr.P.C., is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction as enshrined in S.439-A, Cr.P.C

Criminal revision before the Court of Sessions was not competent, because, an order of acquittal can only be assailed by way of remedy provided under S.417(2), Cr.P.C., and not otherwise

No illegality or perversity was noticed in the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court, dismissing the criminal revision filed by the complainant

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Order IX, R.4 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is one of very few exceptions envisaged by the provisions of the C.P.C., which provides that even in case of dismissal of a suit/application, the law equips the plaintiff/applicant to either initiate fresh proceedings or seek setting aside of dismissal order under O.IX, R.2, C.P.C.

Petitioner was appointed to the post of lecturer on contract basis for a period of five years and the period had expired, therefore, indulgence in the matter was uncalled for

Contract employee was debarred from approaching High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction

Only remedy available to contract employee was to file suit for damages alleging breach of contract

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

If any time, a lawful remedy/course was, apparently, being exploited for personal reasons or to cause pressure upon a rival then such move needed to be examined

Petitioner had filed the petition with mala fide intention by suppressing the real facts

Constitutional petition was dismissed with costs.

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993 and Rules made thereunder had not recognized any sort of statutory remedy against the interlocutory orders and the wisdom of the legislature was manifest and evident from scheme of law itself

Practice of attacking interlocutory orders of Family Court in constitutional jurisdiction was liable to be buried in its very inception as right of appeal/revision/review were admittedly creatures of statute

Such practice was burdening the Court with unnecessary litigation and frustrated the basic intent/purpose of special law.

Since rescission is a remedy of last resort, it can only be granted if no alternative remedies are available; it is not sufficient for an alternative remedy to merely exist, the alternative remedy must be practical and adequate.

No legal bar existed for a party to avail two or more available remedies under the law simultaneously and a decision in any one of such remedies availed would render the others as infructuous.

Imposing or not, of 'regularization charges' was within the parameters of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority, and such determination was within the scope of S.12(2) of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, as there was no other remedy provided within such law to cater to the same

Review application was maintainable in circumstances.

Appellant was candidate for election to the seat of Chairman Senate who was aggrieved of decision of Presiding Officer declaring respondent as the Chairman

Single Judge of High Court declined to interfere in the decision of election

Validity

All other businesses were excluded when Senate was constituted and Chairman and Deputy Chairman were to be elected

Process of election of Chairman Senate was part and parcel of valid structuring of the Senate

Election process, under Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business for the Senate, 2012, was not headed as business of Senate

Order to place in valid Senate, Chairman Senate and Deputy Chairman were to be elected and process of election, to such posts, tantamount to "proceedings"

No decision of Speaker of National Assembly or Chairman Senate or the Deputy Chairman Senate, could be assailed

Actions or inactions of such office bearers if were of administrative nature or did not fall within procedural irregularity in proceedings, could be judicially reviewed

It was only essential and proper that a resolution could be moved by appellant, if he felt that he had been declared an unsuccessful candidate through an erroneous ruling of Presiding Officer; making election or the process of election not fair, just and honest, which could be put to vote and whoever had the majority, should carry the day

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court regarding maintainability of Constitutional petition and alternate and adequate remedy as the same did not suffer from any error calling for interference

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Application under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR on the allegation that her husband and brother were murdered by police during custody in fake police encounters

Police officials contended that matter was judicially inquired by a Magistrate appointed under Ss.174 & 176, Cr.P.C. by Sessions Judge

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application filed by petitioner

Validity

If petitioner claimed the encounters as fake and she had evidence in such regard, that should have been investigated when in both the encounters the only story on the surface was by police officers

Story narrated by petitioner did not appear to be true so she was not entitled for any relief and application under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. was rightly dismissed

Petitioner had a legitimate right to raise a voice alleging fake encounters and it must have been investigated

High Court directed the authorities to record version of petitioner in Roznamcha (Daily Diary) of police station concerned so that the same would form part of investigation of FIRs already registered and would be investigated on merits

Practice on the part of police officers to ask for judicial inquiry in the matters (in particular police encounter), other than determination of cause of death, amounted to misuse of their powers

Sessions Judge before entrustment of such application to a Magistrate was under obligation to examine its contents so as to find out that what had been asked, was permissible under law and was the request made within the parameters of S.176, Cr.P.C. and if not it would have been turned down

Request made by police authorities to Sessions Judge for probing into the facts of occurrence, entertaining such application by Sessions Judge and its entrustment to Magistrate were illegal and without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Ex-parte judgment and decree in favour of petitioners-plaintiffs was set aside concurrently by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court in exercise of powers under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Validity

Several remedies are available to an aggrieved person against ex-parte decree out of which first can be application under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. second a review application under S.114, C.P.C., third appeal under S.96, C.P.C. and fourth application under S.12(2), C.P.C., when decree is product of fraud, misrepresentation and coram non judice

Suitor was to opt any legal action to enforce any right and or invoke a remedy to set right a wrong or to vindicate an injury

Suitor has to elect and or choose from amongst host of actions or remedies available under law

Respondents-defendants, in the present cases, opted to move application under S.12(2), C.P.C. with assertion that they were proceeded ex-parte on account of fake and faulty service reports

Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was not decided summarily rather fate of the case was determined after framing of necessary issues and recording of evidence of both the sides

Both the sides were conscious of the controversy who produced their evidence which was appraised by Courts below in a beneficent manner

Glaring flaws in mode of service were floating on the surface of record which were sufficient to erode validity of ex-parte judgment and decree

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by two Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

In case of false FIR, option of proceeding under S.182, P.P.C. is available but Court cannot invoke the same unless complaint/report is field by concerned Station House Officer, for which even no direction can be given

There is another option available under S. 250, Cr.P.C. to Courts that is awarding of compensation.

Impugned order did not deal with any question relating to the tax assessment and did not impose any type of financial penalty upon the appellant

Section 60 of Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012, provided the hierarchy of the officers of "The Authority" having different pecuniary jurisdictions to decide the matters involving determination of tax liability, assessment of the tax, charging of default surcharge, imposition of penalty and recovery of amount erroneously refunded or any other contravention or violation including tax fraud

Words 'any other contravention or violation' had to be read and understood in the same sequence as it also related to the matters involving the determination of tax assessment or any other financial liability or claim of the taxpayer

Grievance of appellant could easily be redressed under S.29(2) of Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012, and R. 13 of Punjab Sales Tax on Services (Registration and De-registration) Rules, 2012

Authority was bound to de-register the appellant if he satisfied the Authority by producing the evidence that he did not qualify to be treated as taxable service provider

Order for compulsory registration of appellant was well-reasoned as the appellant himself had pleaded that he was constructing a commercial building

Appeal was dismissed.

Employment disputes in such relationship are not amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution

When such relationship exists between an employer and employee then in case of termination the latter cannot claim a right to be reinstated but is entitled to ask for damages, if he/she is able to establish his wrongful removal.

Doctrine of election (of remedy) existed to ensure that once a litigant had made the choice of pursuing a certain course of action available to him or had abandoned a certain plea/action, then he was not allowed to reopen the same matter only because he had received unfavourable results as a result of his first choice.

Courts are not empowered to provide a remedy to a person, under a law, if none was provided by the legislature.

Passions, entreaties or even lack of remedy had never been recognized as grounds to permit a person to apply for a relief to which he was not entitled.

Petitioner moved application under O. IX, R 13, C.P.C. for setting aside of an ex-parte judgment and decree which was dismissed and thereafter filed petition under S.12(2), C.P.C. which was also dismissed being time-barred

Validity

No bar existed to challenge any wrong mutation which had adversely affected right of a person through which he was deprived of his legal rights in an immovable property

Findings of Courts below with regard to prayer in the original suit had attained finality which could not be challenged by filing an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.

Judgment-debtor had already availed alternate remedy under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C. and he could not succeed

Provisions contained in S. 47, C.P.C. could be availed and objections were to be decided in the mode as a suit

No person was to be deprived of his legal rights on mere technicalities

Petitioner had arguable case but due to ill-advise no proper application was filed on his behalf

Impugned judgments were set aside and petition under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was converted into one under S. 47, C.P.C.

Matter was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to process the application under S. 47, C.P.C. in accordance with law

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

If National Accountability Bureau trials are taking so long to complete due to no fault of accused it is not for accused to be made to suffer prolonged incarceration due to fault of State in any civilized society

State has to sort out shortcomings in criminal justice system so that accused is not unnecessarily made to suffer due to failure of State.

Moment a suitor intended to commence any legal action to enforce any right and or invoke a remedy to set right a wrong or to vindicate an injury, he had to elect and or choose from amongst host of actions or remedies available under the law

Choice to initiate and pursue one out of host of available concurrent or co-existent proceeding/ actions or remedy from a forum of competent jurisdiction vested with the suitor

Once choice was exercised and election was made then a suitor was prohibited from launching another proceeding to seek a relief or remedy contrary to what could be claimed and or achieved by adopting other proceeding/action and or remedy, which in legal parlance was recognized as doctrine of election, which doctrine was culled by the courts of law from the well-recognized principles of waiver and or abandonment of a known right, claim, privilege or relief as contained in O. II, R. 2, C.P.C., principles of estoppel as embodied in Art.114 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984 and principles of res judicata as articulated in S.11, C.P.C. and its Explanations

Doctrine of election applied both to the original proceedings/action as well to defences and so also to challenge the outcome on culmination of such original proceedings/action, in the form of order or judgment/decree

Although there was no bar to concurrently invoke more than one remedy at the same time against an ex-parte order/ judgment, however, once election or choice from amongst two or more available remedy was made and exhausted, judgment debtor could not ordinarily be permitted subsequently to venture into other concurrently or coexisting available remedies

Court generally give such suitor choice to elect one of the many remedies concurrently invoked against one and same ex parte order/judgment, as multiple and simultaneous proceedings may be hit by principle of res-subjudice (section 10 C.P.C.) and or where one of the proceeding was taken to its logical conclusion then other pending proceeding for the similar relief may be hit by principles of res judicata

Giving choice to elect remedy from amongst several coexistent and or concurrent remedies did not frustrate or deny right of a person to choose any remedy, which best suited under the given circumstances but to prevent recourse to multiple or successive redressal of a singular wrong or impugned action before the competent forum/court of original and or appellate jurisdiction, such rule of prudence had been evolved by courts of law to curb multiplicity of proceedings

As long as a party did not avail of the remedy before a Court of competent jurisdiction all such remedies remain open to be invoked

Once the election was made then the party generally, could not be allowed to hop over and shop for one after another coexistent remedies

Right of fair trial did not envisage recourse to successive remedies one after another against one and the same impugned order on substantially same set of facts and pleadings seeking substantially similar relief, as it would be against the doctrine of election.

Provincial Government was bound to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and decide his/her appeal within thirty days

Appeals filed by the petitioner being pending before the Provincial Secretary (Home and Tribal Affairs) was to be decided within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order

Petitioner was directed by the High Court to appear before the Provincial Secretary (Home and Tribal Affairs)

If the petitioner had not preferred appeal within stipulated period or his appeal had been misplaced, the constitutional petition of the petitioner was to be treated as appeal for the purpose

Additional Registrar of High Court was directed to transmit entire record of present constitutional petition to the department for doing the needful

Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

No provision of appeal against the interlocutory orders had been provided within the purview of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Final order was subject to appeal under the provisions of S.54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Any detriment suffered by the applicants by virtue of impugned order, if any, could be agitated in an appeal against the final order in the proceedings

Interference of Court at such stage in presence of such remedy to the applicants was not merited

No extraordinary or exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated by the applicants to exercise jurisdiction in such regard

Evidence had already been recorded by the Trial Court

Order for inspection of acquired land at present stage would be futile

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Application for restoration of election petition was entrusted by Election Commission to another Tribunal to decide application as well as election petition on merits after hearing the parties

Validity

Procedure laid down by Election Commission did not give or provide Election Tribunal any power/jurisdiction which was akin to O.IX, R.9, C.P.C.

No power of review was provided to Election Tribunal under Representation of the People Act, 1976 meaning thereby that any decision rendered or order passed could not be recalled by Election Tribunal either in exercise of review or powers similar under O.IX, R.9, C.P.C.

No appeal was provided against order passed by Election Commission, however, same could be assailed if it suffered from illegality or jurisdictional error

Order in question suffered from jurisdictional error inasmuch as Election Commission had no jurisdiction to entrust application for restoration to any other Tribunal

High Court set aside order passed by Election Commission consequently application for restoration of election petition stood dismissed

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Federal Government might publish, in the official Gazette, a list of persons as proscribed persons in the Fourth Schedule under S.11-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if there were reasonable grounds to believe that such persons were involved in any activities linked in any manner with a proscribed organization or had concerns in terrorism

In terms of S.11-EE(3) of the Act, any person, being aggrieved of the order passed by the Federal Government under S.11-EE of the Act, might file a review application before the Federal Government, and if such review application was refused, then he might file appeal before the High Court within 30 days of the refusal of the review

Petitioners, in the present case, had been declared as proscribed persons through various notifications issued by the Government, and their description was fully mentioned in the list, which notification had not been challenged through present petition

Impugned list only described those persons, who had already been placed in Fourth Sched. of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by Federal Government

Petitioners had not challenged the notifications under which their names had been placed in Fourth Sched. of the Act, either by filing a review application or appeal in terms of S.11-EE(3) of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art, 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked where other adequate remedy was available to an aggrieved person

No legal infirmity or fault was pointed out in the impugned list

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendants contended that as parties were joint owners, decree for possession could not be passed and plaintiff had to file either suit for partition or suit under S. 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Validity

Defendants failed to prove their joint ownership in suit property

Partition could only be sought against co-owners

Suit for possession under S. 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 had different parameters, which was not the case of defendants.

Contentions raised by plaintiff were that provision of Order XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C. were not applicable to the present suit as earlier suit had been withdrawn on basis of compromise and the same had not been decided on merit and that both suits were filed on different causes of action

Validity

Earlier suit was dismissed as withdrawn on basis of compromise effected between the parties

Decree was passed on basis of compromise, and non-compliance thereof, provided fresh cause of action to plaintiff to file fresh suit

Principle of res judicata was not attracted in circumstance of the present case

Withdrawal of earlier suit was not simple withdrawal, as the decree was passed on basis of duly executed compromise between parties, and in that eventuality fresh suit was not barred

Findings of Trial Court were not correct as the court had failed to appreciate legal perspective of the case

High Court accepting appeal set aside order of Trial Court

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

No remedy of appeal, revision or review had been provided against an interim order passed by the Family Court.

Plaintiff was a shipping company and claimed that despite delivery of consignments, defendant failed to pay freight amount

Plea raised by defendant was that suit was not maintainable as there was no resolution passed by Board of Directors of plaintiff company in favour of plaintiff witness

Validity

If plaintiff had Board resolution in favour of plaintiff witness, then same should have been produced even at a subsequent stage in evidence by reexamining plaintiff witness but that was not done

Plaintiff could have cured such irregularity by producing Articles of Association containing power and authority to institute legal proceedings conferred upon a particular person or Director in which case Board resolution was not required and the same was also not done by plaintiff

Plaintiff was adversely affected by principle relating to best evidence, according to which, if a best piece of evidence was not produced by a party or was withheld then an adverse inference would be drawn against such party that it had deliberately not produced the evidence, coupled with some motive

Suit was not maintainable as person who filed proceedings was not authorized by Board of Directors of plaintiff company or by way of some other written instrument including Articles of Association or Power of Attorney

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Rent Controller dismissed application filed under S. 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on ground that relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied which required recording of evidence

Validity

Under S. 21(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, Legislature had specifically prohibited filing of appeal against interim order, and the same was, therefore, not challengeable

Interim order would merge in final verdict, which, then, would be appealable

Object of Legislature would be frustrated by exercise of constitutional jurisdiction against impugned order passed by Rent Controller, whereby he dismissed the application holding that disputed question as to relationship of landlord and tenant existed, was interim in nature, and the same was not a question of exercise of jurisdiction in excess, for invoking constitutional jurisdiction

Tenant would have adequate remedy to challenge impugned order in appeal against final order

Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed in circumstances.

Complainant was asked by Federal Tax Ombudsman as to whether he had agitated against compulsory registration before concerned Commissioner to which he replied in negative

Validity

Remedy to the compliant could only be provided administratively by the Chief Commissioner or concerned Commissioner under proviso to R.6(4) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006

Both Department and complainant agreed that the authorized representative of the complainant would move an application for de-registration of the complainant before the Chief Commissioner, intimating the reasons for wrong compulsory registration and the Departmental Representative would then intimate to the concerned Commissioner to reconsider application of the complainant on merit, as per law

Complaint was disposed of, accordingly.

Basic right of a beneficiary was to have the trust duly administered in accordance with the provisions of the trust instrument, if any, and the general law

Where there had been a breach of such duty, the basic purpose of any remedy would be either to put the beneficiary in the same position as if the breach had not occurred or to vest in the beneficiary any profit which the trustee may have made by reason of the breach (and which ought therefore properly to be held on behalf of the beneficiary)

Placing the beneficiary in the same position as he would have been in but for the breach may involve restoring the value of something lost by the breach or making good financial damage caused by the breach

Monetary award which reflected neither loss caused nor profit gained by the wrongdoer would be penal.

Objection raised and decided was a question that related to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree, which fell within ambit of S.47, C.P.C. and was an appealable order under S.104, C.P.C..

Contention of the wife was that both the courts below have misread the . contents of Nikahnama according to which an amount of Rupees Two Lac, Ten tolas gold and house was fixed as dower

Respondent/husband took the plea that the entries mentioned in Nikahnama were forged, fabricated and manipulated with the connivance of Nikah Registrar

Validity

Nikahnama was a public document which was registered under the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and as such presumption of truth was attached to the same-According to law, four copies of the Nikahnama were prepared, out of which one was kept by Nikah Registrar, second was sent to the concerned Municipal Corporation or Union Council, third copy was supplied to the bride and the fourth one was given to the bridegroom

Very object behind providing copies to all concerned was that each party could verify the entries in Nikahnama according to the terms of marriage settled between them-If the respondent/husband was of the view that Nikah Registrar had interpolated in the entries of Nikah Register, he could approach the Deputy Commissioner who was the controlling authority and could get the same corrected but he did not bother to avail his remedy against the alleged interpolation in Nikahnama

Both the courts below had wrongly dismissed the suit of the petitioner/wife and she was entitled to recover the same dower amount, gold and a house from the respondent husband as settled between them at the time of Nikah-Constitutional petition was allowed.

While interpreting a statute, redundancy is to be avoided and an effort has to be made to read provisions harmoniously.

Guidance provided by the Supreme Court (UK) in relation to cases where damages may be awarded instead of an injunction.

Where a claimant had established that the defendant's activities constituted a nuisance, prima facie the remedy to which he was entitled (in addition to damages for past nuisance) was an injunction to restrain the defendant from committing such nuisance in the future

Prima facie position was that an injunction should be granted, so the legal burden was on the defendant to show why it should not be granted

When a judge was called on to decide whether to award damages in lieu of an injunction, there should not be any inclination either way, and the outcome should depend on all the evidence and arguments

In some cases, the grant of planning permission for a particular activity (whether carried on at the claimant's, or the defendant's, premises) may provide strong support for the contention that the activity was of benefit to the public, which would be relevant to the question of whether or not to grant an injunction

Accordingly, the existence of a planning permission which expressly or inherently authorised carrying on an activity in such a way as to cause a nuisance by noise or the like, could be a factor in favour of refusing an injunction and compensating the claimant in damages

Court in such cases would have to weigh up all the competing factors

In some cases the court may well be impressed by a defendant's argument that an injunction would involve a loss to the public or a waste of resources on account of what may be a single claimant, or that the financial implications of an injunction for the defendant would be disproportionate to the damage done to the claimant if he was left to his claim in damages

In many such cases, particularly where an injunction would in practice stop the defendant from pursuing the activities, an injunction may well not be the appropriate remedy.

Most uses of land said to be objectionable could not be restrained by injunction simply as between the owner of that land and his neighbour

If the use of a site for an activity was restrained by injunction, that prevented the activity as between the defendant and the whole world; yet it may be a use which was in the interest of many other people who derived enjoyment or economic benefits from it of precisely the kind with which the planning system was concerned

Injunction prohibiting the activity entirely would operate in practice in exactly the same way as a refusal of planning permission, but without regard to the factors which a planning authority would be bound to take into account

Solution to such a problem was to allow the activity to continue but to compensate the claimant financially for the loss of amenity and the diminished value of his property

In a case where planning permission had actually been granted for the use in question, there were particularly strong reasons for adopting such a solution, as it was what the law normally provided for when a public interest conflicted with a proprietary right.