Skip to main content

2005 M L D 834

By

Constitutional petition --- Registration of criminal case --- Respondent filed suit for partition against petitioner --- petitioner in her written statement controverted allegations levelled by respondent in the plaint contending that respondent/ plaintiff had been divorced by her husband before his death with mutual consent of parties – Respondent in view of contents of written statement, withdrew her claim ---- Petitioner filed an application before Trial Court under S. 476, Cr. P. C. to initiate proceedings against respondent as she had made a false statement and false claim before the Court in contents of plaint --- Said application of petitioner having been dismissed by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court petitioner had filed Constitutional petition alleging that both courts below had erred in law to dismiss her application and said dismissal order was not in consonance with law laid down by Superior Courts --- Word “may” occurring in S. 476, Cr. P. C. had been used for taking cognizance of offence and trying same by the Court which had indicated that it was the discretion of the Court to proceed against a person who had made wrong claim before the Court in the contents of the plaint --- Both Courts below had refused to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner keeping in view the circumstances of case --- Constitutional petition was not maintainable --- High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of finding of Tribunal below while exercising power under Art. 199 of the Constitution. 

For more, you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non-prosecution, stand revived

By
PLJ 2018 Islamabad 276 Present :  Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. M/s. PANTHER DEVELOPERS--Petitioner versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ADJ), WEST, ISLAMABAD and 2 others--Respondents W.P. No. 977 of 2018, decided on 10.4.2018. Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IV of 2001)-- ----S. 17(9)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Execution of lease agreement--Default in payment of rent--Violation of terms and Conditions--Eviction Petition--Dismissed for non prosecution--Application for restoration--Allowed--Tentative order--Struck off right of defence--Eviction Petition allowed--Appeal was dismissed--Determination--Direction to--It is well settled that when a suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, and an application for restoration is filed, Court/Tribunal can, while said application is pending, pass interim orders--It is also well settled that when an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non...
Post a Comment
Read more

Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005

By
PLJ 2018 Lahore 868 [Multan Bench, Multan] Present :  Mujahid Mustaqeem Ahmed, J. MUHAMMAD AMIN--Appellant versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR--Respondent F.A.O. No. 130 of 2016, heard on 5.10.2017. Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005-- ----Ss. 19, 28 & 33--Seed Act, 1976, Ss. 22-B, 22-C, 22-E, 22-D & 23--Purchasing of hybird seed substandard quantity--Issuance of legal notice--Complaint before district consumer Court--Partly allowed--Suffering of Fiscal loss and mental agony--Question of--Whether purchased seed was hybird or substandard--Direction to--Respondent was under legal obligation to get his crop inspected from Obriculturist, Agriculture Officer or any expert of Research Center to obtain expert report/lab report of plants to corroborate his version--Laboratory tests and analysis of such experts are quite helpful   to   determine controversial   issue,   involved in such like cases--It is manifest that a detailed and effective procedure has b...
Post a Comment
Read more

2013 S C M R 587

By
Rule that no limitation ran against a void order was not an inflexible rule --- Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/Prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings --- Appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal was admittedly time-barred, and was rightly dismissed as being hit by limitation and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was found --- High Court agreed with the order of Appellate Tribunal --- Supreme Court had affirmed concurrent findings recorded by fora below --- Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006
Post a Comment
Read more