The Legal Experts Int. Law Firm

29/07/2022

23/04/2022

In a historical development, the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court (IHC) has decided to permit live streaming of judicial proceedings.

Following the decision, the IT department of the IHC Friday installed the instruments for live streaming services in the court of IHC CJ Justice Athar Minallah.

As a result, the court’s proceedings will be carried out from now on a live stream on a limited scale as a trial to see what response comes from this order. It is stated that if the trial turns successful, then everyone having access to the IHC’s website can live stream the proceedings.

Meanwhile, Justice Athar also sought suggestions from the court reporters and directed the journalists covering IHC to assist in making the experience better and fruitful.

09/04/2022

Supreme Court of Pakistan and Islamabad High Court were ordered to be opened. Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan and Chief Justice of IHC reached along with staff.

08/04/2022

2022 SCMR 326

S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Subsequent/second Bail petition, filing of---Fresh grounds---Scope---Accused can maintain a subsequent Bail petition, at post-arrest stage, only on the strength of a fresh ground, accrued after dismissal of his first plea (for Bail )---Ground earlier available but abandoned cannot be received as a fresh ground and, thus, consequences of withdrawal of a Bail petition, made at any stage of hearing, cannot be quantified nor viewed as simpliciter and as such does not allow space for a second attempt in the absence of a newly accrued ground.

08/04/2022

2022 SCMR 523

Ss. 161, 173 & 497 -Bail---Common practice in courts of prosecution department/law officers turning to the Investigation Officer for answers on every query put to them by the Court---Supreme Court deprecated such practice and observed that it was expected that once notice had been issued, the law officer attending to the case would have the relevant information with him, and not continuously ask the Investigation Officer in Court; that in this day and age with cellular phones in nearly every pocket, for the Investigation Officer to physically bring the police file may also not be required; that copies of challan, statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C, forensic, medical and other reports could be transmitted digitally/electronically and printed out for the consideration of the Court.

08/04/2022

Few Grounds for dismissal of a suit for specific performance
1. Handwriting expert reported that signature are forged. (2012 CLC 1699)
2. Two attested witnesses were not produced. (2006 CLC 571)
3. Agreement was written by unlicensed person. (2006 CLC 571)
4. Stamp paper was not issued by stamp vendor . (2012 MLD 535)
5. Dates of purchasing stamp paper and endorsement were different. (2011 YLR 404)
6. Purchaser of stamp paper was not produced as witness. (2011 MLD 404)
7. Stamp paper was issued on one date in favour of an unknown person and was executed on another date. (PLD 2008 Queta 01)
8. Payment of whole consideration was paid before ex*****on. (2006 YLR 2446)
9. Scribe was not a registered Waseeqa Navees. (2006 CLC 1444)
10. Register of scribe belongs to another person wherein various pages and serial number were missing. (2006 CLC 1444)
11. Contradiction as to vanue where bargain took place. (2006 CLC 1444)
12. Contradiction as to person who obtained stamp paper. (2006 CLC 1444)
13. Plaintiff failed to produce bank record as to payment of half money. 2006 MLD 886
14. Date, Time, Month and Place of transaction was not given in pleading or evidence. (2005 YLR 2655)
15. Number of N.I.C was different from number on agreement. (2002 CLC 942)
16. Land was situated at a place whereas stamp paper was purchased from another place. (2002 CLC 942)
17. Neither vendor of stamp paper nor scribe was produced. (2001 YLR 2145)
18. Agreement was scribed on plain paper and was written by unlicensed petition-writer whereas both were available as nearby place. ( 1996 MLD 562)
19. Stamp paper was purchased at one date and executed after one week, stamp paper neither showed name of stamp vendor nor the place from where it was purchased. (1992 CLC 2193)
20. Failure to deposit balance amount. (PLD 2002 Lah 88, 2012 CLC 1392)
21. Two marginal witnesses were not produced. (2013 YLR 903, 2009 SCMR 740)
22. Payment of consideration not proved.(2006 YLR 1039 )
23. Docu

08/04/2022

2022 PLD 1 LAHORE
Art. 69---Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)---Scope---Article 69 of the Constitution specifically bars any person to approach the Courts of law for calling into question any of the proceedings regardless of the fact that it carries any irregularity in the procedure.

08/04/2022

Principle of-Lis Pendens.

2021 SCMR 686
Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto---Scope---Suit filed by plaintiff seeking specific performance of purported agreement to sell after property already sold by owner to a third party---In such circumstances the sale to the third party could not be defeated by placing reliance on S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 since transfer of property was not done when the suit was pending, but had already taken place---Moreover, the plaint did not state, nor was it established, that the sale to the third party was fraudulent or collusive

2002 SCMR 2003
Transfer of Property Act 1882 ----S.52---Lis pendens, principle of---Applicability---Transfer of Property during litigation---Effect---Transfer made pendente lite would not ipso facto become void, rather such transfer could not affect right of other parties in suit---Sale because of lis pendens would not be regarded as nullity, either same was voluntary or involuntary.
Transfer of Property Act 1882 ----Ss. 41 & 52---Transfer of Property during litigation---Bona fide purchaser for value, right of---Lis pendens, principle of---Applicability---Rights of parties in property subject-matter of litigation were protected by S.52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Neither party could deal with property under litigation in a manner to affect the right of his opponent---Principle of lis pendens is applicable to transfer made pendente lite, unless subsequent purchaser established that he was a transferee for value and had paid price in god faith without notice of interest of a third party---Bona fide purchaser for value was protected by S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

2014 SCMR 33
Lis pendens , principle of---Applicability and exception--- Consent decree obtained by collusion---Fraudulent transfer---Scope---Defendant claimed to have purchased suit land from vendor vide agreement to sell dated 1-12-1969 and filed a suit for specific performanc