Exit from Pakistan (control) Rules 2010

Exit from Pakistan (control) Rules 2010

Rule 2 — Exit form Pakistan (control) Ordinance XLVI of 1981.. section 2 placing name of person on the Exit control list…. Ground – pendency of a criminal case.. Name of the respondent bad been placed on exist control list as she was nominated in a case of murder of accustoms officer in connection with smuggling of foreign currency— legality… notification/memorandum. whereby name of respondent was placed on the Exist control list, was issued purportedly for a reason which did not conform to the criteria as laid down in the exist from Pakistan Control Rules 2010 and the exist control policy. Liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed by mere registration of a criminal case – Registration of an FIR had no nexus with and was extraneous to the object of the exits from Pakistan control ordinance 1981. Furthermore, while issuing the impugned notification/memorandum the Ministry of Interior had also overlooked an order of High Court whereby the said Ministry was restricted from placing the respondent’s name on the Exist control List has therefore rightly struck off the impugned notification/memorandum – Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly .

2017 SCMR 1179

Execution of Decree Passed in UAE

EXECUTION OF DECREE PASSED IN UAE

Section 13 and 44-A CPC, Govt of Pakistan Law, Justice and Human Rights Division. Notification NO. SRO 208(I)/2007 dated 6-3-2007 Execution of decree passed by court in United Arab Emirates—Hierarchy of courts in UAE for purpose of section 44-A, CPC—scope—- UAE has been declared as a reciprocating state in context of section 44-A, CPC—Federal court of appeal in the UAE was a superior court for the purpose of section 44-A CPC— Decree in the present case, had been passed by the court of first instance in UAE which could neither be construed as court of appeal nor a superior court in terms of section 44-A CPC— Said decree thus could not be executed without having recourse to the process of section 13 CPC—Appeal was allowed accordingly with the observations that respondent was t liberty to institute a suit in terms of section 13 cpc

PLD 2017 SC 95

CCTV Video Evidentiary Value

Article 164 of Qanoon Shahadat.. Close Circuit Television (CCTV) footage evidientary value.. mere producing of CCTV footage as a piece of ebidence in court is not sufficient to reply upon the same unless it is provided to be geniune– in order to prove the genuineness such footage it is incumbent upon the defence or prosecutation to examine the person who prepared such footage from the CCTC syetem.

2016 SCMR 2084

Territorial jurisdiction of family court

Territorial jurisdiction of family court

Section 6 of family court rules 1965, section 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 of civil procedure code 1908

Family court territorial jurisdiction .. court within the local limits of which the wife ordinary resides… family court alone had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all the matrimonial disputes, whataver their nature, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, provided that the famiy court where the wife resides shall have the jurisdiction to entertain such suits/claims… provisions of section 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 CPC stood excluded from the proceedings before the family court, thus the question of its territorial jurisdiction would never arise, provided that the family court where the wife resides shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all such matter.

PLD 2016 SC 613