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

Detection of Electricity Bill

Detection of Electricity Bill

Section 24, 26-A, & 54-C of Electricity Act 1910

Detection of bill – determination — civil court / electric inspector  – jurisdiction—plaintiff assailed detection  bill issued by Electric company but trial court dismissed the suit on the plea of lack of jurisdiction – lower appellant court set aside judgment and decree passed by trial court and suit filed by plaintiff was decreed in his favor – validity – in case of theft of electricity or illegal abstraction of energy, Electric Inspector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute and jurisdiction was exclusively with civil court, which could resolve the controversy after proper appreciation of evidence produced by parties—Detection Bill issued to plaintiff was violation of natural justice, therefore the same was liable to be annulled — solitary witness produced by defendant company admitted the stance of plaintiff in his cross examination in unequivocal manner – High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower appellant court – Revision was dismissed in circumstances ..

2016 CLC Note 39 Peshawar 

Permission of Advocate General for filing suit of public Nuisance

Public Nuisance

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