Concealment of Facts

 

     2019  YLR  815     

        KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

 

 O. xxxix , Rr. 1 & 2---Temporary injunction / interim / interlocutory order, grant of.

 Principles-

 Exercise of discretion by the Court.

*Non-disclosure or concealment of pending or

 *Previous litigation.

    √ Sufficient to disentitle a party from equitable relief of temporary injunction.

*Irreparable loss / injury---Scope---Relief of injunction was discretionary and an equitable relief which a party could not claim as a matter of right and he who seeks equity must come to the court with clean hands---Before grant of such relief, conscience of the court had to be satisfied that the party seeking such relief had not acted inequitably and concealment of factum of earlier litigation was contumacious and inequitable and such concealment disentitled a party to grant of discretionary relief of injunction---

°√ Party seeking temporary injunction was duty bound to bring necessary facts about any previous litigation before the Court and complete disclosure about previous connected, related or relevant proceedings and orders was essential and unless non-disclosure of the same could be satisfactorily explained, a claimant should not, as a matter of general principle, be granted interim relief---

•√ Party seeking temporary injunction must also satisfy the court that an interference was necessary to protect it from the species of injury which the court called "irreparable loss" before the legal right could be established---For adjudication of the question of granting or withholding preventive equitable relief, an injury was set to be irreparable either because no legal remedy furnished full compensation for it or if there was no adequate redress for such injury or there existed inherent ineffectiveness of legal remedy for such injury.

Gift

    Gift-Ingredients

      

2020 C L C 1561.  [Balochistan]

(a) Islamic Law---

Gift---Ingredients---Dispute as to execution of gift---Non-joinder of necessary party---Effect---Contention of plaintiff was that suit property had been gifted in his favour---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court decreed the same---Validity---Plaintiff had not arrayed Secretary Board of Revenue as party in the suit---Suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party---Ingredients of gift i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession were not available to the plaintiff---Physical possession of suit property had not been transferred in his favour on the basis of gift---Impugned gift was defective in nature and was not enforceable under the law---If any of the conditions of gift was missing then it could not be termed as valid gift---Donor had expired in the year 1983 whereas gift deed was of 1984---Plaintiff had also not disclosed correct description of suit property, which had been recorded in the name of Provincial Government---Suit had been filed after lapse of thirty five years and was time barred---Party was to pursue his legal remedy with diligence and if suit was beyond limitation then each day delay should have been explained---Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court did not contain findings on each and every issue---Trial Court had passed well-reasoned and speaking judgment and decree based on correct appraisal of evidence---Appellate Court had reversed the findings of Trial Court without any valid and convincing grounds---Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored---Revision was allowed, accordingly.

     Principle of Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mulla para. 138; Mst. Rasheeda Bibi and others v. Mukhtar Ahmed and others 2008 SCMR 1384; Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmed and others PLD 1985 SC 153; Murad Bakhsh and 4 others v. Mst. Syeda Ashraf Jahan and 4 others 2017 CLC 646 and Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.W.F.P and another PLD 1997 SC 397 rel.(

b) Islamic Law---

Gift---Ingredients---Ingredients of gift were offer, acceptance and delivery of possession.

Chance Witness

           Chance Witness

           

  2023 PCrLJ NOTE 110

      Chance witness --- Scope -- Testimony of chance witness ordinarily was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time --- In normal course , the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot --- Testimony of chance witness might be relied upon , provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot were put forth , when the occurrence took place , otherwise his testimony will fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt.

Classification of Evidence

                Classification of Evidence

2023 PCrLJ 1156

                2023 PCrLJ 1156

Classification of Evidence.

      Any given item of judicial evidence may attract more than one of the labels by which varieties of evidence have been classified -- Principal labels are 

( i ) Testimony ,. 

( ii ) Hearsay evidence

( iii ) Documentary evidence , 

( iv ) Real evidence and

( v ) Circumstantial evidence - 

      Testimony means direct evidence ; hearsay , an indirect evidence ; documentary evidence means presentation of facts through documents ; real evidence includes material things ( like case property ) --- In addition to material objects , real evidence also includes documents , physical appearance of persons and animals , demeanour of witnesses , intonation of voices on a tape recording , views , inspections out of courts of locus in quo or of some object which it is impossible or highly inconvenient to bring to court , and , possibly , out - of - court demonstrations or re - enactments of acts or events into which Court is inquiring --- Circumstantial evidence means evidence of relevant facts like motive , plans and preparatory acts , capacity , opportunity , identity , continuance , failure to give evidence , failure to provide evidence and standards of comparison.