Due Diligence
Due Diligence legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Due diligence is performance of act with care and caution expected of a reasonable and prudent man in particular circumstances.
"Due Diligence", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/7832
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Due Diligence"
2017 C L C Note 198
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS through LRs and others — Appellants Versus ABDUL REHMAN through LRs and others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 2001 Supreme Court 228
BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court:P L D 2014 Peshawar 45
Dr. RIAZ KHAN — Appellant Versus ABDUR RASHEED and 9 others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1983 Supreme Court 385
Mirza MUHAMMAD SAEED-Petitioner Versus SHAHAB-UD-DIN AND 8 oTH$its-Respondents
Court: Ss. 5 & 14-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151-Condonation of delay-Courts can show indulgence and condone delay where time has been lost by prosecuting remedy before wrong forum on account of bona fide mistake or error of counsel which reasonable and prudent man despite exercising due diligence and caution might have committed - Mistake in approaching wrong forum due to gross negligence and carelessness of counsel where not appearing that counsel has shown due diligence and caution before moving wrong forum-Held, only remedy for client of such counsel to sue him for damages for loss suffered on account of his negligence-Exercise of such remedy more frequently and counsel made to pay for their carelessness and negligence may ameliorate situation.-Counsel and client.2012 C L C 945
Syed SAQLAIN ABBAS — Appellant Versus Syed HAYAT SHAH — Respondent
Court: Lahore2024 C L C 357
AYAZ MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus MUSADAQ RIAZ and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)2017 C L C Note 51
MUHAMMAD AFZAL through LRs. and 8 others — Petitioners Versus FIDA HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1974 S C M R 158
MRS. ISMAT TARIQ‑Petitioner Versus Sh. SHAUKAT ALI‑Respondent
Court: High Court1991 S C M R 1679
SHERIN and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1995 Peshawar 86
SARDARAZ KHAN and 36 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus AMIRULLAH KHAN and 34 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 14(1)‑‑‑Phrase "unable to entertain it" as used in S.14(1), Limitation Act, 1908‑‑‑Connotation‑‑‑Phrase "unable to entertain it" appearing in S.14(1), Limitation Act, 1908, would not serve the purpose of negligent and non -diligent appellant, such phrase give idea of entertainment (of appeal etc.) only where Court lacks pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction and it has to return such appeal without entertaining it‑‑‑Connotation of the phrase "unable to entertain it" was that no adjudication could be made in such situations viz. lack of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction‑‑‑Court while coming to conclusion that it had no such jurisdiction, regardless of period of time involved, would be deemed to be "unable to entertain it", notwithstanding the fact that it (lis) practically stood received and registered in the relevant register of appeals or suits.‑‑Words and phrases.