Permission of Advocate General for filing case is not mandatory
Section 91 of CPC… permission of advocate General of filing of a lis … written permission of Advocate General was required for filing a lis by two or more persons with regard to public nuisance who had not suffered any special damage… said condition would not limit or affect a right of suit which might exist independently… where one or more person had approached the court for declaration of a nuisance while claiming an invasion to their easement right. permission of Advocate General for filing the lis was not required. in the present case plaintiffs had alleged that use of property as Marriage Hall by the respondents had been causing serious discomfort and annoyance resulting in disturbing their easement rights.. Held .. one had a right to enjoy music and arrange gathering or feast at this place but not by discomforting or annoying neighbors to enjoy their right of easement and restrict them to reach at their doors…. Complaint of the plaintiff if established would continue a nuisance infringement of their individual rights to enjoy property and right of live therein… booth the courts below had exceeded in exercising their jurisdiction.. impugned judgment/orders passed by the court below were set aside and case was remanded in its original position for decision in accordance with law which a specified time.
PLD 2016 SINDH 292
Registration of second FIR on same incident
Section 154 and section 561-A Cr.P.C .. power of high court ot order registration of another second FIR for the same incident… scope… mala fide, dishonesty ulterior motives of the police or investigating officer.. misleading the investigation or prosecution… court had the power to order registration of another FIR at any appropriate stage of the proceedings however such power had to be exercised with extreme care and caution and not in routine manner.
PLD 2016 Supreme Court 484
Section 25 of Specific Relief Act 1877
Section 25 vendor or lessor having no title— effect—According to section 25 specific relief act 1877 where contact was by such vendor or lessor who had no title enforcement of such a contract could not be legally made— where it ws proved that vendor or lessor had not title then a suit for specific performance should not be continued.
2016 YLR 890 Sindh
Section 12 and 18 of specific performance of agreement
Suit for specific performance of agreement. not mere acceptance of promise which would create a binding contract but was competence of the parties and legal consideration which turned consents of two or more into a legal contract… if party was not competent for agreed act or omission it would leave other party with no option but to seek legal remedy provided under section 18 of specific Relief Act 1877 and right to seek enforcement should not be available to him…
Decree for specific performance could only be obtained against competent person and not against the one who either had no title or had an imperfect defective title.
2016 YLR 890 Sindh
One carrying an imperfect or disputed title could not become a competent person to make a legal contract.
2016 YLR 890