Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

ABDULLAH versus ABDUR RAZAK


West Pakistan Citizens Rental Ordinance 1959 Section 13 Ways to Leave Out of Property at the Time of Request for Evacuation Required The law is where the landlord must file the premises before being filed for personal necessity or during the eviction case. If he is allowed to go, it will defeat his life. Freuds is not a principle of universal application. There was a question of fact about personal need and need which could be different from one case to another when a landlord acquired possession of a premises. It was his duty to state that the disputed premises was more suitable for his needs, so he was not allowed to show that the tenant was not obliged to show that the disputed premises were occupied. There was nothing more appropriate for the owner's needs than personal knowledge contained facts that were within the knowledge. The landlord should, and therefore should be defined, instead of the tenant where a landlord was in possession of a premises and wanted to occupy another premises as per his need, then he had to specify specifically and It had to be clarified that the houses in his possession were not sufficient to meet his need unless it was proved, it would be difficult to establish. In fact, the disputed premises are needed.
1987 M L D 1036

[Karachi]

Before Ali Nawaz Budhani, J

SULTAN AHMAD--Applicant

Versus

THE STATE--Respondent

Criminal Bail Application No. 115 of 1984, decided on 14th February, 1984.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---S. 498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 307, 326 & 324--Bail--Medical Certificate produced showing that all injuries received .by complainant were simple in nature--Question whether offence committed by accused would fall under section 307 or under section 326 or 324, Penal Code, requiring inquiry at stage of trial--Bail granted.

Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant.

A.A. Muhammadally, Asstt. A . -G. for the State.

ORDER

The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that although in F. I. R. complainant mentioned four injuries, the medical certificate shows six injuries and further the F.I.R. in question was lodged after delay of three hours. In addition to this the learned counsel submitted, that all the six injuries have been declared to be simple injuries and as such the question of applicant having intention to kill the complainant prima facie does not arise, as from the version of the incident as given in the F.I.R., complainant was completely at the mercy of the applicant, who could have caused injuries on the vital part of the body of the complainant, but he did not do so and as such prima facie the case of the prosecution against the present applicant would fall under section 324, P.P.C., and not under section 307, P.P.C., and in support of this, the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon case reported in N L R 1980 Criminal 368.

The learned Asstt. A.-G. appearing for the State at the outset submitted, that he was not opposing the above application as the case against the present applicant whether it falls under section 307 or 326 or 324 would require further inquiry at the stage of trial, as all the injuries received by the complainant are simple.

I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the F.I.R. as well as copies of the medical certificate shown to me by the learned Advocate for the applicant.

The delay, in the F.I.R. has been explained satisfactorily to me, prima facie, as complainant went direct to the hospital. However, the medical certificates shown by the learned Advocate for the applicant show, that all the six injuries received by the complainant are simple injuries and as such the question whether the offence committed by the applicant would fall under section 307 or under section 326 or 324, P.P.C., -would require inquiry at the stage of trial. Therefore, I allow the above application and direct that the applicant be released on bail, on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.30,000 with P.R . bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Any observation made by me regarding merits of the case are tentative and as such shall not be binding on the learned trial Court.

M.Y.H: Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
law websites from Mohen Jo Daro lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.