Advocate and Pleader— Scope— Pleader is entitled to appear for another and not for himself—- If one wants to represent his/her client as advocate then he (advocate) is not legally entitled to examine himself in place of his party (client) as for such purpose he has to unclothe his status as advocate and has to clothe with attorney/authorized agent.
Negligence of counsel did not constitute sufficient cause
Parties are bound by the acts and omissions of their counsel
in ase of any negligence on party of the counsel, parties could not claim that they were not to be held responsible.
Negligence on the party of advocate, has a binding effect on his client— any negligence on the party of the advocate, was binding upon party which had engaged the advocate— if pary would engage a counsel who was lacking sense of responsibility to the court, it was the party who should suffer and not the other side.
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 .
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.
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 ..