Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXVI,R.2,1,O.XXVI,R.4,O.X,R.1A

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXVI,R.2,1,O.XXVI,R.4,O.X,R.1A

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 37(d)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXVI, Rr. 1 & 2---Commission to examine witness(es), issuance of---Scope---Court could issue such Commission either on its own motion or on application supported by an affidavit of any party to suit or witness to be examined---List shown in O.XXVI, R.1, C.P.C. was not exhaustive or limited, rather court had jurisdiction to decide whether any miscarriage would be done by not issuing such Commission under particular facts and circumstances of case---Justice would not be done by not appointing a Commissioner, rather justice could be done if substantive right of parties were decided at its earliest---Appointment of Commissioner otherwise under O.XXVI, R.2, C.P.C. would not be barred or unlawful or unjustified. 1997 SCMR 260; PLD 1998 SC 161; 2011 YLR 2770; 2009 CLC 459; PLD 2008 Kar. 239; 1981 SCMR 336; 1990 CLC 155; 2004 YLR 1876; AIR 1975 Cal. 303 and AIR 1964 SC 993 ref. (b) Administration of justice--- ---Delay in deciding cases---Delay in deciding a case is caused on account of accumulative effect of overall functioning of various sections of society, who are concerned with litigation including litigants themselves. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 39---Suit for specific performance of sale agreement by vendee---Rival suit by vendor for cancellation of such agreement still pending---Payment of Rs. five million by vendee to vendor at time of execution of such agreement, while deposit of remaining sale consideration of Rs. eighty-five million in response to court's order passed on vendor's application---Vendor was still enjoying possession of suit property---Application by vendee for giving direction to vendor to deposit in court amount of Rs. five million received by him---Vendor's plea that on account of default committed by vendee, earnest money had already been forfeited---Validity---Court after framing issues had yet to determine whether Rs. five million was liable to be forfeited or vendor was liable to specifically perform such agreement---Token money of Rs. five million could not be believed for a property worth Rs.13,500,000/----Such Rs. five million had not been established to be…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492