Relief

This is a discretionary relief and even in case where agreement to sell has been proved, exercise of discretion can be withheld by Court.

Whether, in an incompetent suit, relief could be moulded, and the plaintiff could be awarded that relief which he did not even pray, and in which he was not interested

Held, that the High Court found the suit filed by the plaintiff to be incompetent, but taking into account the admission made by defendant in his written statement that he had only obtained a loan of Rs.2,200,000 from the plaintiff, modified the decree of the Trial Court and held that the plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of the amount from defendant, subject to deposit of court fee within one month

Plaintiff neither sought this relief in his plaint nor was it the subject matter of the relevant framed issue, which was to the effect "whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for?"

So, it could not be granted, particularly when it was found that the suit was not maintainable

Furthermore the plaintiff's counsel was asked whether the plaintiff, in compliance with the judgment of the High Court, had provided the Court fee within time, to which he replied in the negative and said that the plaintiff was not interested in the recovery of the amount

In such a situation, the modification in relief made by the High Court was not justified

Appeal filed by plaintiff was dismissed.

It is the duty of every court to implement the enforced laws and to decide the disputes in accordance therewith, rather than on the basis of compassion

Courts cannot grant any relief in breach of the law nor create a right in favour of a litigant which the latter does not possess by or under the law

Compassion and hardship cannot be relevant considerations when there is no scope for it in the relevant laws.

Where the conduct of the person claiming declaratory relief is unconscionable or inequitable, the court may decline to grant him the relief on this sole ground.

Generally speaking, in civil litigation, the entitlement to any relief covers the period commencing accrual of the cause of action

Such entitlement may, however, be controlled, curtailed or restricted by an appropriate legislature by express words or necessary implications

Additionally, in cases where claimants succeed in establishing a cause of action but without proof of the exact date of accrual thereof, relief is usually granted from the date of institution of the suit

If a cause of action is recurring or continuous one, the relief is granted for the future period covering entitlement of the claimant.

High Court was competent to grant any sort of relief which was consequential upon the main relief.

Where a citizen sought relief in constitutional jurisdiction he must point to a right statutory or constitutional which vested in him and had been denied in violation of the law.

Where a citizen sought relief in constitutional jurisdiction he must point to a right statutory or constitutional which vested in him and had been denied in violation of the law.

Held, that Superior Courts were well within their jurisdiction rather were under obligation to take notice of the changed circumstances/subsequent events to mould the relief sought for in the interest of safe dispensation of justice.

Ample discretion laid with the Court to deny the relief to a purchaser of an immovable property keeping in view the circumstances of each case

Purchaser could not claim specific performance of a contract as a matter of right even where it was lawful to do so.

In a suit under S. 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the declaration of the entitlement was an inbuilt relief claimed by the plaintiff of such a case

In such circumstances, a prior declaration for the said entitlement under S. 42 of the Specific Relief, 1877 could not be made a condition precedent for filing a suit for possession under S. 8 of the Act.

Although claim filed by salesman was maintainable under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 but he did not fall within the definition of a 'workman'

In such circumstances the salesman was entitled to relief in contractual terms

After the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, (X of 2010), the Province of Punjab amended the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by way of Punjab Payment of Wages (Amendment) Act, 2014 such that, clause (b) of S. 2(vi) of 1936 Act was omitted, thus, when the salesman/petitioner filed his claim in the year 2015, both contributions to the provident fund, i.e., as made by him as well as the company, came within the definition of "wages" and thus relief could be granted to him accordingly under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly.

Although claim filed by salesman was maintainable under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 but he did not fall within the definition of a 'workman'

In such circumstances the salesman was entitled to relief in contractual terms

After the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, the Province of Punjab amended the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by way of Punjab Payment of Wages (Amendment) Act, 2014 such that, clause (b) of S. 2(vi) of 1936 Act was omitted, thus, when the salesman/petitioner filed his claim in the year 2015, both contributions to the provident fund, i.e., as made by him as well as the company, came within the definition of "wages" and thus relief could be granted to him accordingly under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly.

Relief being discretionary in nature, could be denied in constitutional jurisdiction owing to malicious conduct of petitioner.

Petitioner failed to join the proceedings before the Family court; as a result thereof, ex parte order was passed against him

Said order was recalled with the direction to the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.1,000

Sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioner but neither he deposited the cost nor filed written statement

Family Court struck off the right of the petitioner to file written statement

Suit proceeded ex parte and was decreed in favour of the wife

Validity

Petitioner/husband being indolent himself throughout the proceedings could not seek equity by exercising Constitutional jurisdiction; he who seeks equity must do equity

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Relief could not be granted beyond the scope of prayer clause but High Court had jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events which had surfaced during pendency of a lis before it and had direct nexus with the subject of the pending lis.

Court might take judicial notice of the changed situation and mold the relief to do substantial justice between the parties.

Equity had to give way to law and its principles could only be resorted to and invoked when the resolution of a proposition was not provided and available by or under the law; it was equity then which came into play to fill up the vacuum, where the law provided no answer for doing justice

Rules of equity could not be taken into account to frustrate and defeat the law.

Under S.46(2) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 all such reliefs by way of damages, injunction, accounts were available to the proprietor of a trademark simultaneously and not as an alternate to each other

Where in addition to interim injunction a plaintiff had claimed damages and compensation in a suit relating to trademark rights, interim relief could not be denied to proprietor of trademark on such ground.

Under S.46(2) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 all such reliefs by way of damages, injunction, accounts were available to the proprietor of a trademark simultaneously and not as an alternate to each other

Where in addition to interim injunction a plaintiff had claimed damages and compensation in a suit relating to trademark rights, interim relief could not be denied to proprietor of trademark on such ground.

Words "not specifically given" in proviso to S. 8-Do not refer to form of expression in which increase or allowance should have been mentioned in agreement or in other document and refer to intention of parties and to factum of grant or payment of allowance to worker.

Cannot be granted by Court-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 34.

Relief Relief-(Ad interim)-Not granted while giving leave to appeal against ad interim order of High Court suspending an Advocate's licence pending inquiry against him by Bar Council.

Relief Possibility of relief, if granted, being made ineffective by Government in exercise of other statutory powers-Court will not proceed to grant such relief-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.

Relief-Sought against order of Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner and not against order passed by Rehabilitation Commissioner confirming order of Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner-Order of Additional R. C. set aside on writ petition-Order of R. C. falls automatically-Petitioner filing copies of order of R. C. with petition-Petitioner deemed to be attacking order of R. C. as well.

No prejudice to petitioner in the present but likelihood of prejudice in future-Relief granted.

Relief -Grant of, dependent on setting aside an order which is a nullity in law-Plaintiff need not specifically include prayer for setting aside the order.

Claim to, arising out of pleadings without there being an express prayer for same-Relief granted to avoid multiplicity of litigation.