Qanuni Amdad urdu

Cancellation of documents  اگر دستاویز منسوخ کرنےکے لیے دعوی دائر کیا جاۓ اور اس میں ریونیو آفیسر کو پارٹی نہ بنایا جاۓ تو دعوی ڈگری نہ ہو گا ۔ 2017MLD 338 **The Legal Implications of Document Cancellation in Pakistan** In Pakistan, the cancellation of documents is a legal process governed by specific laws and regulations. Whether it's cancelling a property deed, a contract, or any other legal document, the procedure must adhere to the guidelines set forth by the relevant authorities. **Understanding Document Cancellation:** Document cancellation refers to the formal process of invalidating or revoking a previously executed legal document. This could be due to various reasons such as fraud, errors, expiration, or the parties involved mutually agreeing to cancel the document. **Laws Governing Document Cancellation:** The cancellation of documents in Pakistan is primarily regulated by the Contract Act of 1872 and other relevant statutes such as the Registration Act of 1908. These law

The main point discussed in the judgment is the validity of the suits filed by the respondents claiming ownership of properties, the admissibility of additional evidence, and the determination of the true ownership of the properties involved in the disputes. The court set aside the judgments of the appellate court, reinstated the decisions of the trial courts, and dismissed the appeals and applications for additional evidence filed by the respondents. The case involves multiple civil revision petitions in the Lahore High Court, all interconnected by similar facts and legal issues. In each petition, a respondent filed a suit against a petitioner seeking declaration as the owner-in-possession of certain properties, alleging that the petitioner held the properties as benamidars. Initially, the suits were decreed in favor of the respondents by the trial courts, but upon appeal, the appellate courts reversed the decisions and decreed the suits in favor of the respondents.  The petitioners a

The main point ordered by the court is to set aside the initiation of fresh inquiry proceedings against the petitioner as it violated the principle of double jeopardy. The main point decided in the judgment is that once disciplinary proceedings against an individual have been dropped and they have been exonerated, there is no legal basis to initiate fresh proceedings against them on the same charges. This decision upholds the principle of double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being prosecuted or punished twice for the same offense. The judgment you provided concerns a case where the petitioner challenged the initiation of inquiry proceedings against them under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The petitioner argued that since they had already been exonerated in a previous inquiry, initiating new proceedings against them violated the principle of double jeopardy. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that once disciplinary proc

Rape cases  Lahore High court acquitted the accused of rape  due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, highlighting doubts about the credibility of the allegations. Main story of the judgment   The case involves allegations of rape against the accused, Amjad Ali, involving the victim, Shagufta Parveen, who was a teacher. The incident purportedly occurred when Amjad Ali called Shagufta out of school under false pretenses and took her to a house, where he and another individual allegedly raped her at gunpoint. The prosecution presented witness testimony and medical evidence to support their case. However, the judgment highlighted various inconsistencies and shortcomings in the prosecution's evidence, including delays in reporting the incident, discrepancies in witness testimony, and inconclusive medical findings. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of th

Condonation of delay The court orders the dismissal of the appeal and application for condonation of delay due to insufficient explanation and non-compliance with court orders. Main story of the case   The case involves an appeal filed by Mst. Nishat Mummunka against Safdar Raza. It appears that a judgment and decree were passed on 04.05.2021, but the appellant filed the appeal on 13.10.2022, which was beyond the prescribed time limit. The appellant cited unavoidable circumstances as the reason for the delay. However, the court found the explanation insufficient, especially considering the failure to submit a surety bond as ordered by the trial court. Consequently, the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit was upheld, as it was deemed appropriate in light of the appellant's non-compliance. The main point discussed  in the judgment is regarding the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, specifically in relation to the Limitation Act. The judgment emphasizes that the Limi

Custody of Minor  The court granted interim custody of the minor son to the mother, acknowledging her preferential right to custody under Islamic law, pending final determination by the Guardian Court. The case revolves around a mother, Sadia Aziz, seeking custody of her minor son, Muhammad Shahzain, who was reportedly in the custody of his father, Zain-ul-Abideen. The petitioner claimed that she was expelled from the house by the respondent, depriving her of custody of her son. The father argued that the mother had abandoned the child and was not in touch for two months. The court, considering Islamic law, highlighted the mother's preferential right to custody, especially for children of tender age. The court granted interim custody to the mother, pending final determination by the Guardian Court. The case demonstrates the intricate legal considerations in matters of child custody, balancing parental rights with the best interests of the child. Form No.HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN TH