SOPs issued to curb fraudulent case filing
Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Aalia Neelum has issued new standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all district courts in Punjab to tackle the growing issue of fraudulent case filings and financial irregularities.'
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
4 days ago
- Business Recorder
Special attorney not liable for acts performed on behalf of principal: LHC
LAHORE: The court held that a special attorney functions as an agent and he is not personally liable for acts performed on behalf of the principal. The court restrained the respondents from recovering the decretal amount from the petitioner Abdul Razzaq, or from attaching the petitioner's immovable property, merely on account of his status as the special attorney of the principal. The court; therefore, directed the respondent authorities to initiate and conclude recovery proceedings against the judgment-debtor Abdul Khaliq within three months. LHC explains what actually constitutes power of attorney The court observed that the responsibility of the attorney and surety with the judgment-debtor is coextensive with that of the judgment-debtor. The court said the liability of a special attorney in execution proceedings must be determined with reference to the specific contents and scope of the power of attorney executed in his favour. The court observed that a power of attorney must be construed strictly, and only those acts, duties, and obligations that are expressly conferred upon the attorney may be lawfully performed by him. The court said that no implied or assumed obligation can be fastened upon an agent beyond what has been clearly and expressly delegated. It observed that in the present case, the petitioner, acting as a special attorney, neither made any substantive commitment to satisfy the decree nor exceeded the scope of authority conferred by the power of attorney; therefore, no coercive action can lawfully be directed against him, the court added. The court said doing so would amount to an excess of jurisdiction and a violation of the fundamental principle that delegated authority does not create personal liability unless expressly undertaken. The court; therefore, held that the impugned actions of the respondents in proceedings against the petitioner who is not the judgment-debtor are ultra vires, without lawful authority, and contrary to settled legal norms. The court said if the judgment-debtor is residing abroad or is otherwise avoiding execution, the proper legal recourse lies under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which permits the recovery of the decretal amount as arrears of land revenue. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
7 days ago
- Express Tribune
'Offer met with silence can't be accepted later'
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside a family court's ruling, observing that an offer or proposal which is not expressly accepted and is instead met with silence, conduct or behaviour indicating disinterest or unwillingness, cannot be accepted at a later stage. The case involved petitioner Ahmed Raza, who, during family court proceedings, offered that he had no objection to the decreeing of two suits - one for recovery of maintenance allowance and another for dowry articles and gold ornaments - in favour of Respondent No.2. However, he made this conditional upon her parents or real brothers swearing a special oath on the Holy Quran, affirming that her claims were truthful. Interestingly, at the time, the respondents did not respond to the offer, neither accepting nor rejecting it. The petitioner subsequently closed his oral evidence, sought time to produce documentary evidence, and the case was fixed for final arguments on November 16, 2020. However, before the final arguments could proceed, the respondents filed an application expressing their willingness to accept the petitioner's earlier offer made during cross-examination. The petitioner contested this application, requesting the court to decide the suits on merit. Nevertheless, the family court ruled that the petitioner could not back out of the offer or proposal he had made. Challenging this decision, the petitioner approached the LHC, which overturned the family court's order. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan held that once the trial had moved forward, leaving the offer unaccepted, it became ineffective. "The party missed the train by not expressly accepting the offer promptly," the judge noted. Thereafter, the petitioner's documentary evidence was recorded, and the matter was set down for final arguments. Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4 contended that once the offer for a special oath was made, the petitioner could not withdraw from it. Subsequently, the LHC held that a lack of timely acceptance rendered the proposal null and void.
Express Tribune
01-06-2025
- Express Tribune
Blocking of passports: officials pass buck to interior ministry
Passports of thousands of people across Punjab have been blocked for the last 2 years due to their suspected participation in May 9, 2023 rioting incidents — leading to cancellation of their international trips including pilgrimage to Makkah. Interestingly, geo fencing was used to identify the alleged rioters active in a particular area on May 9 and May 10 of 2023. As a result, dozens of people — including employees of government and private organizations, whose workplaces were located in those localities and who used phones during rioting — faced blacklisting of passports. A number of these people came to know that their passports have been blocked only when they arrived at the airport to fly to foreign destinations or went to the passport office for renewal of their documents. Dozens of such people have now approached the Lahore High Court (LHC). While hearing these petitions, the LHC has summoned passport officials along with records. In many of these cases, passport authorities have already submitted records to the court showing that the passports have been blacklisted. The Passport and Immigration Department told the LHC that the task of blacklisting passports does not fall under their jurisdiction and that the Ministry of Interior includes and removes names from the blacklist and the Exit Control List (ECL). They claimed that the names of the petitioners were added to the blacklist due to their alleged involvement in May 9 incidents. Those individuals whose names are on the blacklist or whose passports have expired cannot renew their document until their names are removed from the blacklist. Violent protests broke out across the country after the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan on May 9, 2023. During the turmoil, attacks were carried out on 39 military installations across the country between 3pm and 7pm of May 9. Most of these attacks — 23 — occurred in Punjab, followed by 8 in K-P, 7 in Sindh and one in Balochistan. Major military facilities attacked included the GHQ in Rawalpindi, the Corps Commander's House in Lahore, the Mianwali Air Force Base, and ISI offices in Faisalabad, Sargodha, and Rawalpindi.
