Rule of Thumb

2018 PLD 703 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

DeterminationRule of thumb

Determining general damages for mental torture, agony, defamation and financial loss were to be assessed following the 'rule of thumb'

Such exercise falls in discretionary jurisdiction of the Court which has to decide in the facts and circumstances of each case.

2014 MLD 356 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Award of damagesConditionsDemolition of houseCompensationQuantum of compensationDeterminationRule of thumbApplicabilityDevelopment Authority/defendant demolished plaintiff's house

Plaintiff challenged demolition of house before High Court, whereby the High Court declared the demolition illegal and directed to approach competent court of law for adequate compensation

Suit for damages filed by plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court

Appellate Court allowed appeal of the plaintiff and awarded compensation along with interest thereon

Appellate Court after thrashing out the entire record and evidence had come to the conclusion that specific amount would be the correct amount for granting compensation to the plaintiff in respect of the agonies suffered

Validity

Awarding of damages was always the discretionary power of the court and such power had to be exercised keeping in view the facts of each case

No exact amount of compensation could be calculated and only a tentative assessment had to be made keeping in view the evidence produced by the plaintiff and rule of thumb could be applied in this regard

Claim of money as nearly possible to damages suffered by the plaintiff are to be granted

Defendant admitted the fact that without proper application of law they had demolished the property of plaintiff

Plaintiff had proved that she was entitled for compensation

Compensation awarded by the Appellate Court keeping in view all the attending circumstances, evidence, documents and other material appeared to be reasonable and no interference in this regard was warranted

Revision application was dismissed.

2013 PLD 11 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 5 Sched. & S.17Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act (XLIII of 1976), Ss. 2(b) & 10Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Rules, 1976, R.4Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionSuit for recovery of dowry articlesRule of thumbApplicabilityList of dowry articles produced in evidence by both parties in support of their respective claimDecree passed by Family Court on basis of such list produced by husband upheld by Appellate Court

Wife's plea that rule of thumb would apply to proceedings before Family Court and not provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 or its principles, thus, receipts in respect of purchase of dowry articles produced by her were liable to be relied upon by courts below

Validity

Wife in her statement had admitted that such list was not prepared at time of her Nikah, while her father had deposed otherwise

Rule of thumb would not absolve a party from establishing his/her claim

Party denying liability, on basis of such rule, could not be burdened to shoulder claim of opposite party without its proof

Dowry list produced by wife was not prepared in shape of Form D-1 as prescribed in R.4(1) of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Rules, 1976, therefore same was not to be considered in support of her claim

Receipts in respect of purchase of household articles on basis of rule of thumb, would not qualify and meet essential requirement of proof of purchase of said articles by parents of wife and its giving to her before or after marriage

High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.

2012 PLD 80 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 23-ASuit for recovery of damagesExercise of official authorityMala fide actsRule of thumbApplicability

Plaintiff was civil servant who suffered on account of official orders passed by defendant which were based on mala fide

Trial Court and High Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff

Validity

Orders passed by defendant were reversed by competent authority and those were found to be passed unauthorizedly

Plaintiff had brought on record a number of official documents through custodian of the record, which documents were neither objected to nor their contents were challenged by defendants before Trial Court at evidence stage

Plaintiff though had failed to quantify the damages claimed by him as required under the law, as such the same did not mean that plaintiff was not entitled to grant of general damages under the rule of thumb on the face of material brought on record by him during trial

Plaintiff was entitled to grant of general damages for mental agony which he had suffered on account of the conduct of defendant

Plaintiff pleaded specific instances to establish personal vengeance against defendant on account of which he claimed to have suffered losses and mental agony

Pleadings and evidence brought in support of claim of damages by plaintiff were sufficient to award general damages to plaintiff against defendant

Supreme Court set aside the judgments and decrees passed by Trial Court and High Court and partly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff

Plaintiff was entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.100,000 with mark up at the rate of 10% till the date of recovery of the amount

Appeal was allowed.

2012 PLC(CS) 574 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 23-ASuit for recovery of damagesExercise of official authorityMala fide actsRule of thumbApplicability

Plaintiff was civil servant who suffered on account of official orders passed by defendant which were based on mala fide

Trial Court and High Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff

Validity

Orders passed by defendant were reversed by competent authority and those were found to be passed unauthorizedly

Plaintiff had brought on record a number of official documents through custodian of the record, which documents were neither objected to nor their contents were challenged by defendants before Trial Court at evidence stage

Plaintiff though had failed to quantify the damages claimed by him as required under the law, as such the same did not mean that plaintiff was not entitled to grant of general damages under the rule of thumb on the face of material brought on record by him during trial

Plaintiff was entitled to grant of general damages for mental agony which he had suffered on account of the conduct of defendant

Plaintiff pleaded specific instances to establish personal vengeance against defendant on account of which he claimed to have suffered losses and mental agony

Pleadings and evidence brought in support of claim of damages by plaintiff were sufficient to award general damages to plaintiff against defendant

Supreme Court set aside the judgments and decrees passed by Trial Court and High Court and partly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff

Plaintiff was entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.100,000 with mark up at the rate of 10% till the date of recovery of the amount

Appeal was allowed.

1995 CLC 739 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Rule of ThumbPrinciple ofApplicabilityDamages have to be generally awarded by the Rule of Thumb

Fact that exact amount was not determinable could not be a ground for non suiting plaintiff: -[Damages].

1990 CLC 428 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Rule of Thumb Meaning and scope

Where sanction against a prohibition is imposition of fine, calculated to protect or generate public revenue, the contravening transaction is not void but where the intention of the legislation is to protect members bf the public or any segment of them in their dealings with those exposed to levy of fine, the relevant transactions are void and unenforceable.