Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAZI versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION

12 Art 128 and 129 child legal status um speculation - Generally, individuals are not allowed to discuss a claim of "legitimate marriage" by two competent persons unless they claim their rights under such a claim. Do not disclose the existence of prejudicial causes. The burden is always on the person who denies or disagrees with the relationship, [p641] A.

P L D 2017 Sindh 634 

Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J

MUHAMMAD RAZI and another—Plaintiffs

versus

KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION, through Managing Director and another—Defendants

Suit No.883 of 2009, decided on 8th February, 2017.

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)—

—Arts. 128 & 129—Legitimacy of child—Presumption—Normally, individuals are not permitted to dispute a claim of 'lawful marriage' by two competent persons unless they prima facie show existence of reasons prejudicing their rights under such claim—Burden is always upon the person to prove, who denies or disputes the relation, [p. 641] A

(b) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)—

—S. 1—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1884), Arts. 117 & 120—Fatal accident—Onus to prove—Principle—Onus of probandi stands shifted upon defendants, in either situation where they deny negligence or take specific plea of not causing accident. [p. 642] B

Mst. Sakina y. National Logistic Cell 1995 MLD 633 and Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Malik Abdul Habib 1993 SCMR 848* rel.

(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)—

—Art. 71—Oral evidence—Scope—When a witness does not claim to be an eye-witness of incident, legally his words in respect of fact in question cannot be believed nor considered within the meaning of Art.71 of Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984, which directs that oral evidence must in all cases whatever be direct, [p. 644] C

(d) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)—

—S. 1—Fatal accident—Damages, recovery of Son of plaintiffs died in road accident due to rash and negligent driving of defendant— Validity—Deceased died at the age of 20 years and had surmounted his teenage and joined practical life—High Court took the age of deceased for compensation/damages as 'seventy years'—Deceased was a skilled computer embroidery designer and was earning Rs. 15,000 per month he. Rs.500 per day—High Court accepted the earning as the same matched with quantum of minimum wage—Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the tort in question and were liable to pay such amount to plaintiffs—Suit was decreed accordingly. [p. 652] D&E j

Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Ghulam Dastagir Khan PLD 2015 SC 327; Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. Karachi and others v. Ehteshamuddin Qureshi 2005 SCMR 1392 and Catholic Child Welfare Society v. Various Claimant (FC) the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools 2013 SCMR 787 ref.

2011 SCMR 1836 rel.

list of supreme court advocates from Pirpai lawyer