Judicial exam Preparation by Arslan

Government Pleader needs No Wakalatnama to submit in court. He is just to inform the court that he is representing.

PLD 1969 K 566

2025 M L D 2001

Suit for recovery on the basis of negotiable instrument / cheque-Statutory presumption in favor of a negotiable instrument, departure from-Denial of ex*****on by alleged drawer of cheque-Rebuttal of statutory presumption in favor of negotiable instrument--Effect-Onus would shiftupon holder of cheque to establish underlying transaction and consideration-Scope-Transaction has to be essentially proved to secure decree on cheques---Principle enunciated-Present connected appeals were instituted against decrées passed under O. # # Rr.(1) & (2) of C.P.C. where the respondent instituted suits based on dishonoured cheques (For Rs.5,000,000 and Rs.300,000,000) allegedly issued towards consideration for sacrificial animals-The appellant disputed the underlying transactions, claiming that no sale or purchase of animals occurred and that the cheques, delivered blank to a third party under an insurance arrangement, were misused-The central issue, therefore, was "whether the decrees were rightly granted on the basis of the cheques alone or whether the appellant's defence of absence of contractual relationship and misuse of cheques raised a valid ground negating the respondent's claim?"-Held: Original cheque contained writing with different ink whereupon signatures were made with dark ink and other details were with different ink-This discrepancy provided credibility to the plea that details on cheques were added at a later stage and in piecemeal---Evidence led by appellant if read in absolute isolation could not outrightly prove absence of consideration against the cheques but when read in context of conspicuous shortcomings / discrepancies in the evidence led by the holder of the instrument claim of presumption under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted-In wake of denial of alleged transaction and obligation of payment of consideration and upon discharge of initial burden by the appellant to challenge claim of presumption, onus shifted a

*2025LHC7965*
Rule 10-A of Order V, C.P.C. provides that *simultaneously with the issuance of summons under Rule 9 of Order V, C.P.C*. there shall be sent a notice through registered post A. D. and that the acknowledgement of summons purported to be signed by defendant on the receipt of registered communication or endorsement by postal employee that the defendant refused to take delivery of the same shall be deemed by the court to be prima facie proof of service of summons. Rule 17 of Order V, C.P.C. mandates that if the defendant or his agent refused to sign the acknowledgment or where the serving officer, after using of due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant and there is no agent empowered to accept such service the serving officer shall *affix a copy of summons at the outer door or some other conspicuous* part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides and shall return the original to the court from which it was issued with a report enclosed stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so and name and address of persons by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. Rule 18 of Order V, C.P.C. requires that serving officer shall, in all cases in which summons were served under Rule 16 of Order V, C.P.C., endorse or annex a return stating the *time and manner* in which the summons was served and the name and address of person identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery or tender of summons. Rule 19 of Order V, C.P.C. provides that where summons is returned under Rule 17 of Order V, C.P.C. the court shall, if the return under the rule had not been verified by the affidavit of serving officer or if it had so been verified, *examine the serving officer on oath or cause him to be so examined by another court touching his proceedings* and may make such further inquiry in the matter as thought fit and shall either declare that the summons was duly served or order of such service thought fit.
C.R. No.782 of 2016
Muhammad Hanif Versus Abdul Razzaq
10.12.2025

Restitutio in Integrum

This Latin phrase, meaning "restoration to the original position," embodies the empowering legal principle that individuals wronged by others deserve to be restored to their prior state, whenever possible. This principle promotes fairness and justice, enabling individuals to reclaim their original position through compensation, reversal of actions, or annulment of effects.

For instance, if a contract is rescinded due to fraud, restitutio in integrum ensures that both parties return what they received, reinstating them to their pre-contractual state. 🤔💡📚

Ex Debito Justitiae

This Latin phrase means “as a matter of right arising out of justice.”
When a court grants relief ex debito justitiae, it does so not out of discretion, but because justice demands it and the applicant is legally entitled to it.

Example:

If a court’s order is passed without jurisdiction, it can be set aside ex debito justitiae, because no one should suffer from an order that is legally void.

What is an Omnibus Bail Order?

An omnibus bail order is a single bail order that applies to all cases or FIRs registered against the same person.
Instead of filing separate bail applications for every case, the court issues one comprehensive order granting bail for all pending matters together.

This order is generally passed when several cases are of a similar nature and the court wants to prevent repeated arrests and unnecessary harassment of the accused.

A summary suit under Order # # , CPC ordinarily has two phases: the first, being the stage of summary proceedings commencing from the institution of the suit and ending with the decision on leave to defend. If the plaint is returned on account of jurisdiction or leave is refused, the matter concludes at this stage. If the leave is granted, the second phase follows, in which the suit is treated as a regular/ordinary trial: issues are framed, parties adduce their evidence, the burden of proof is determined in the light of those issues, and the case is decided on merits, in accordance with the general procedure of the CPC and law of evidence.

Raziq International VS
Multan Exporte etc
Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain

2025 LHC 5935

Registration of FIR or initiation of criminal proceedings through attorney are permissible under the law.

2025 SCMR 1221
Art 9... Right of life...
Civil service .... promotion.....
Fair, transparent and merit based considerations for promotion forms an essential facet of the right to livelihood, and thus of right to life itself ....
where civil servant meets prescribed qualifications and conditions for promotion, lawful and transparent consideration of their case creates a legitimate expectation that such progression has to materialize unless cogent reasons to the contrary exist ...
Denial or indefinite deferral in such consideration, particularly when based on arbitrary ,opaque or shifting grounds violates such expectations and reduces constitutional guarantees to mere rhetoric.