Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Frivolous meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Frivolous

Frivolous legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

Definition not found in search database.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Frivolous", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/22222

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Frivolous"

CLD 2025
2025-May-14

2025 C L D 1317

SYMPL ENERGY PVT LTD. — Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
SCMR 1985
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.406-K of 1984, decided on 17th June, 1985.

1985 S C M R 1965

JALILUDDIN — Petitioner Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
MLD 2022
2022-February-1

2022 M L D 1517

BAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus The SP CHAMKANI, PESHAWAR and others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
CLC 1992
First Rent Appeal No.641 of 1989, decided on 4th February, 1992.

1992 C L C 1211

IBRAHIM ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi
SCMR 2023
The correct threshold for the summary dismissal of applications made in the criminal law context is whether the underlying application is manifestly frivolous. This threshold promotes both trial efficiency and trial fairness. The frivolous part of the standard weeds out those applications that will necessarily fail, and manifestly captures the idea that the frivolous nature of the application should be obvious. If the frivolous nature of the application is not manifest or obvious on the face of the record, then the application should not be summarily dismissed and should instead be addressed on its merits. This rigorous standard will allow judges to weed out those applications that would never succeed and which would, by definition, waste court time. It also protects fair trial rights by ensuring that those applications which might succeed, including novel claims, are decided on their merits. This standard does not apply to summary dismissal motions that are otherwise subject to a legislated or judicial threshold.

2023 S C M R 1524

His Majesty The KING — Appellant Versus CODY RAE HAEVISCHER AND MATTHEW JAMES JOHNSTON — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Canada*
PTD 2002
Complaint No. 1609-L of 2001, decided on 20th February, 2002.

2002 P T D 2140

Hafiz GULZAR AHMAD, FAISALABAD Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Court: Federal Tax Ombudsman
MLD 2002
High Court Appeals Nos.57 to 61 of 1994, decided on 20th September, 1999.

2002 M L D 1569

S.I.T.E. ‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. QAMAR HILAL and others‑‑ ‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
CLC 2025
2024-October-14

2025 C L C 664

MUHAMMAD SHERIN and others — Petitioners Versus ZIARAT KHAN and others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar (Mingora Bench)
YLR 2005
Civil Appeal No.83 of 2004, decided on 1st April, 2005.

2005 Y L R 1989

MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Appellant Versus Raja IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)
CLC 1994
Civil Miscellaneous No. 730 of 1992, decided on 1st September, 1994

1994 C L C 2443

MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZIR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore

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