SOPs issued to curb fraudulent case filing
According to a press release issued on Tuesday, the new SOPs approved by the Administrative Committee of the LHC make it mandatory for litigants to complete an 'information sheet' at the time of case filing. The form must include the signature or thumb impression of the petitioner, plaintiff, or litigant, along with a photograph. However, physical appearance in court for the photograph is not required; it can be submitted remotely via webcam.
Moreover, the information sheet must contain the litigant's Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC) and mobile phone numbers on the first page. The step comes in response to a surge in fake and fictitious cases being filed in district courts across the province using forged documents and false identities. These scams enabled fraudulent withdrawals of public funds from the government treasury, using the names of genuine litigants.
Action has already been initiated against individuals involved in such scams.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
LHC frees 5 persons from custody of landlord
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Monday freed five persons after getting them recovered from the illegal custody of a landlord Saeed Anwar in Faisalabad. Earlier, the court heard a petition filed by Rehmat Ali who approached the court for recovery of his brother Jafar along with other family members, including children. The court appointed a bailiff who recovered all the detainees from the landlord's residence. According to the bailiff's report, Jafar stated that the landlord had not only confined him and his family members but had also taken possession of his two buffaloes unlawfully. Following their recovery, all the detainees were produced before the court and set at liberty. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Business Recorder
High court's jurisdiction must not be exercised on a whim: LHC
LAHORE: Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf of the Lahore High Court advised a petitioner Muskan Zahra to approach ex-officio justice of peace for remedy and held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the high court should not be exercised at the whims of the parties. Justice Viqas noted that now a day a trend has developed to bypass the alternate remedies and instead to approach the high court in constitutional jurisdiction. He observed that the high court shall not exercise its writ jurisdiction in the cases where the petitioner has access to an equally efficacious and adequate alternative remedy under the law. The petitioner has approached the court against his parent and police officials harassing her and her husband for contracting the marriage against the will of her parents. The court dismissed the petition in liming and advised the petitioner to approach ex-officio justice of peace as alternate remedy, which is neither illusory nor ineffective, the court added. The court observed that nobody can be allowed to bypass or circumvent the natural course of law by avoiding to avail remedy provided there under and to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this court. The court ruled that it is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is only to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases but not as per convenience of the parties. This on the one hand absolves the relevant forum from performing its functions and duties and on the other, unnecessarily burdened the docket of the high court and deprives the litigants, who have their genuine causes to lay before the high court, the court added. The court also observed that the Police Order, 2002, regulates the police and the police officials have been made answerable with regard to performance of their official duties. In case of any negligence or omission, they not only have to face disciplinary proceedings but also to be confronted with conviction in the shape of imprisonment and fine as well, the court added. The court observed that grievance of the petitioner, as agitated in the instant petition, can easily be remedied through a petition before the ex-officio justice of peace or even she can approach against the respondent police officials, the concerned authorities under the Police Order, 2002. Even otherwise in presence of alternate remedy, a person desirous to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of high court is obliged to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that such remedy is only illusory and not adequate at all, the court concluded. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
6 days ago
- Business Recorder
Declare baggage or face penalties, rules LHC
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that under the Custom Act every passenger is bound to make declaration, answer to questions with respect to baggage and produce any such articles carried by him for examination, failure of which may lead to penalties and confiscation of articles. The court set aside a decision of a custom tribunal in an appeal of a custom collector and remanded the matter of the respondents Muhammad Saleem Badhsh and others for decision afresh who were carrying 1040 foreign origin new/used mobile phones. The court observed that the tribunal has not determined the factual questions as to whether a declaration under section 139 of the Customs Act was made by the respondents or an opportunity to such a declaration was provided by the customs officials at the time of apprehending the respondents. The court said that the highest authority for factual determination in a customs duty matters is the tribunal, and as evident, the factual question of true declaration under Section 139 of the Act has not at all been adverted to by the tribunal, which led to erroneous interpretation of section 142 of the Customs Act, the court added. The court said even in a case of truthful declaration in terms of section 139 of the Customs Act, the option to re-export the goods abroad cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The court said it is inconceivable that there would be any refund or right to re-export will be forthcoming, if indeed. There is a misdeclaration or no declaration at all on the part of a passenger, with a view to evade payment of duty. The court observed that the goods squarely fell in the category of smuggled items and will thus trigger the case of invocation of offences, penalties and confiscation. The court observed that the tribunal has erred in law while passing the impugned order which fails to render any findings qua the factual determination. The findings of the tribunal while relying upon section 142 of the Act are not sustainable in the eye of law, the court concluded. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
