Supreme Court Decision Binding on all courts

Decision of Supreme Court Binding

Article 189 of Constitution of Paistan.. Decision of Supreme Court—Binding effect… decision of Supreme Court enunciating principle of law was binding on all other courts in Pakistan—Judgment passed by any court including High Court contrary to the dictum laid down by th Supreme Court would be a judgment per incuriam

PLD 2017 Islamabad 162

Recording Evidence through Video Link

Recording Evidence through video Link by Family Court

Section 5 and section 11 (1A)  of family court Act 1964, Article 164 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat of 1984, Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan… Suit for Dissolution of Marriage ……. Recording of Statement Through Video Link—Evidence recorded though modern device—scope… wife filed application for recording her statement though video Link was accepted by the Family Court…. Validity… family court could regulate its own procedure— violation of undertaking by the party could not deprive court of its jurisdiction… family court could adopt its own procedure and was not bound by the rigors of civl procedure code 1908… Family court could proceed on the premise that every procedure was permissible unless prohibited… Evidence received thourgh modern devices was admissible under Article 164 of Qanoon-e-Shahdat 1984 . However Qanoon-e-Shahadat was not strictly applicable to family court but family court was not barred from receiving such evidence under any provision of law… petitioner for invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High court was bond to show that court below had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or there was jurisdiction defect in the order impugned or order was illegal or perverse .. No jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by Family Court.. constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

PLD 2017  Lahore 698 (salman Ahmad Khan versus Judge family court Multan)

Blocking the CNIC by NADRA


Section 18 and 23 of NADRA Ordinance 2000… article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan… Power to block computerized National Identity card CNIC under section 23 of NADRA Ordinance 2000… Legality.. impounding of CNIC in term of section 18 of the Ordinance… procedure.. No clear provision in the ordinance authorized the NADRA to block the CNIC. NADRA has no authority to block the CNIC after issuing a notice to the cardholder under section 23 of ordinance.. however instead of blocking, NADRA had the power to physically or digitally impound a CNIC in terms of section 18 of the ordinance after fulfilling requirement of a Notice and granting opportunity of hearing to the cardholder.. High court gave direction laying down the procedure that had to be followed by NADRA before impounding person’s CNIC

PLD 2017 Sindh 585



 Grant of adjournment was prerogative of court concerned but is should be for a valid and justified reason duly established before the court and recorded in writing in the order sheet… Law did not permit repeated adjournments on flimsy grounds without there being any application of mind qua the justification for grant of such adjournments.. court of law must be appreciative of the fact that whereas grant of any adjournment would benefit a particular party the same would add to the misery to the other …. Court to adopt proactive role to curb unnecessary adjournment and ordinarily and matter especially rent and or family should not be repeatedly adjourned and a maximum numer of three adjournment and that too after recording the reason thereof in the interim orders should be granted to the parties

2017 Notes Lahore 182