SAMPLE OF AFFIDAVIT USED IN COURTS OF PAKISTAN

AFFIDAVIT



I, Ghulam Nabi s/o Ghulam Rasool, r/o House No.AA-1001 Mohallah Workshapi, Rawalpindi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the accompanying application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.



…Deponent


The above mentioned affidavit is also using in legal consultancy of Pakistan.



VERIFICATION



Verified on oath at Rawalpindi on this 15th day of March 2010 that the contents of my said Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.



…Deponent

BRANCHES OF LAW

Administrative.

Bankruptcy.

Business.

Communications.

Constitutional.

Consumer.

Criminal law.

Cyberspace.

Disabilities.

Employment.

Entertainment.

Environmental.

Family.

Immigration.

Intellectual property.

International.

Personal injury.

Product liability.

Property.

Public Benefits.

Qui Tam.

Real Estate Law.

Torts.

Traffic.

Trust & Estate Law.


The abvoe mentioned are the branches of law and same are using in legal consultancy in Pakistan.

DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF LAW

In general, a rule of being or of conduct, established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts.



In morals: The will of God as the rule for the disposition and conduct of all responsible beings toward him and toward each other; a rule of living, conformable to righteousness; the rule of action as obligatory on the conscience or moral nature.



The Jewish or Mosaic code, and that part of Scripture where it is written, in distinction from the gospel; hence, also, the Old Testament. ·



An organic rule, as a constitution or charter, establishing and defining the conditions of the existence of a state or other organized community. · Any edict, decree, order, ordinance, statute, resolution, judicial, decision, usage, etc., or recognized, and enforced, by the controlling authority.



In philosophy and physics: A rule of being, operation, or change, so certain and constant that it is conceived of as imposed by the will of God or by some controlling authority; as, the law of gravitation; the laws of motion; the law heredity; the laws of thought; the laws of cause and effect; law of self-preservation.



In mathematics: The rule according to which anything, as the change of value of a variable, or the value of the terms of a series, proceeds; mode or order of sequence. · In arts, works, games, etc.:



The rules of construction, or of procedure, conforming to the conditions of success; a principle, maxim; or usage; as, the laws of poetry, of architecture, of courtesy, or of whist.



Collectively, the whole body of rules relating to one subject, or emanating from one source; including usually the writings pertaining to them, and judicial proceedings under them; as, divine law; English law; Roman law; the law of real property; insurance law.



Legal science; jurisprudence; the principles of equity; applied justice.



Trial by the laws of the land; judicial remedy; litigation; as, to go law.



An oath, as in the presence of a court.



An exclamation of mild surprise.



The learned profession that is mastered by graduate study in a law school and that is responsible for the judicial system; "he studied law at Yale"



A rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society.



A generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics" · The branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do·



Legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity; "there is a law against kidnapping"



The force of policemen and officers; "the law came looking for him"



The collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"


The above mentioned definitions are also using in legal consultancy of Pakistan.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Sampel of an Affidavit using in Courts (In Pakistan)

AFFIDAVIT


I, Ghulam Nabi s/o Ghulam Rasool, r/o House No.AA-1001 Mohallah Workshapi, Rawalpindi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the accompanying application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.


…Deponent
VERIFICATION

Verified on oath at Rawalpindi on this 15th day of March 2010 that the contents of my said Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
…Deponent

Written Statement in Suit for Recovery of Possession before Civil Judge (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF SYED FARRUKH HUSSAIN SHAMSI, CIVIL JUDGE, RAWALPINDI


Farrukh Waseem V/s Mst. Surriya Perveen etc


(Suit for Recovery of Possession)


WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.6


PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS


1. That the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the instant suit, because the house in dispute bearing No.382-B Sector I, Khayaban-e-Sirsyed was in the name of Mehmood Ahmed who mortgaged the said house to answering defendant and gave away possession of said house to answering defendant and now the tenants of answering defendant are in possession of the said house.
2. That the present suit is not maintainable under Sec 10 CPC and it must be stayed because a suit for specific performance for the said house is pending adjudication in Civil Court, Rawalpindi.
3. That the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands hence he is not entitled for any relief.
4. That proper court fee has not been affixed hence the suit be returned.
ON FACTS

1. Para No.1 is incorrect hence denied, in fact suit property was allotted vide No.382-B/SI/1374 dated 08-05-79 issued at 13-02-82 (Copy is attached herewith)
2. Para No.2 is incorrect hence denied.
3. Para No.3 denied being want of knowledge.
4. Para No.4 is incorrect hence denied, allotment letter dated 13-02-82 in name of Mehmood Ahmed is still in force.
5. Para No.5 is incorrect being want of knowledge.
6. Para No.6 is denied being want of knowledge.
7. Para No.7 is incorrect hence denied.
8. Para No.8 is incorrect hence denied.
9. Para No.9 is incorrect hence denied.
10. Para No10 is incorrect hence denied.
11. Para No.11 is incorrect hence denied.
12. Para No.12 is incorrect hence denied. Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit.
13. Para No.13 is legal.
14. Para No.14 is incorrect, the suit land is not properly assessed hence the maximum court should be affixed.


PRAYER

Under the above mentioned circumstances, It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that suit of the plaintiff may very kindly be dismissed with cost.

Defendant No.6
Through

COUNSEL

HABEAS PETITION UNDER SECTION 491 CR.P.C FOR RECOVERY OF DETENUES before Sessions Judge (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI


In the matter of:

Sultan Muhammad son of Sooba Khan, resident of House No. ZB-2, Street No.30, Alam Abad, Dhoke Hassu, Rawalpindi.

…Petitioner
VERSUS

1. Raja Muhammad Shabbir son of name not known to the petitioner.
2. Raja Shahzad Shabbir son of Raja Muhammad Shabbir.
3. Yasir Shabbir son of Raja Muhammad Shabbir.
4. Tazeema Shabbir wife of Raja Muhammad Shabbir.
All residents of Carriage Factory, House No.ZB-3G, Mohallah Rajgan, Dhoke Hassu, Rawalpindi.
5. S.H.O, P.S Gunjmandi, Rawalpindi.

…Respondents

HABEAS PETITION UNDER SECTION 491 CR.P.C FOR RECOVERY OF DETENUES (1) RIZWANA BIBI (2) ZOHAIB AGED ABOUT 4-YEARS FROM THE ILLEGAL, IMPROPER CONFINEMENT OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4

Respectfully Sheweth!

1. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that; the petitioner is unfortunate father of detenues namely Rizwana Bibi and maternal grandfather of detenue No.2 Zobaib.
2. That the daughter of the petitioner was married with one Raja Shahzad Shabbir and out of the wedlock, detenue No.2 was born but later on, Raja Shahzad Shabbir divorced the daughter of the petitioner and after getting divorce, she started living in Dar-ul-Amaan along with her son / detenue No.2. She was living in Dar-ul-Amaan since 21-07-09. (Copy of the application on behalf of detenue No.1 regarding sending to Dar-ul-Amaan, Rawalpindi is attached herewith for the kind perusal by this Honourable Court.
3. That the petitioner used to pay visit to Dar-ul-Amaan and see his real daughter and maternal grandson after 21-07-2009.
4. That previously, when the petitioner tried to see his real daughter in Dar-ul-Amaan, Rawalpindi, he was shocked to know that someone has taken away the detenues and on the search of the petitioner, it transpired that the ex-mother-in-law (respondent No.4) of the detenue No.1 trapped the detenues and took them with her on 12-12-2009. (Copy of the application along with statements of the respondent No.4 and that of detenues are annexed herewith for the kind perusal by this Honourable Court)
5. That when the petitioner approached to the respondents No.1 & 4, they flatly denied to take the dentenues back from the Dar-ul-Amaan and shown their unawareness about the missing of the detenues from the Dar-ul-Amaan, Rawalpindi.
6. That since previously, the family intrigues prevailed between both the families, therefore, the petitioner fairly believes and understands that the respondent No.4 managed to get the custody of the detenues and after getting their custody, she has sent them to unknown place only to avoid the meeting of the petitioner with them.
7. That the petitioner also apprehends that the respondents would cause severe damage to the persons and properties of the detenues if they remained in illegal and improper custody of the respondents No.1 to 4 due to the previous enmity.
8. That the petitioner fairly believes that being the real father of detenue No.1 and maternal grandfather of detenue No.2 has every right to see and keep their custody which is legal and proper.
9. That the petitioner also apprehends a danger to the persons and properties of the detenuues at the hands of respondents No.1 to 4.
10. That the petitioner has time and again requested the respondents No.1 to 4 to send the detenues with him but they flatly refused to accede the genuine request of the petitioner, hence this petition.
11. That the petitioner has no other alternate, efficacious, expeditious and less expensive remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, hence this petition.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the instant petition may kindly be allowed and the detenues may very graciously be recovered through appointment of bailiff with the help of respondent No.5 and the bailiff be directed to produce the detenues before this August Court and after their production, their persons may graciously be handed over to the petitioner which is in the best interest of the justice and for that purpose, the petitioner is ready to pay the requisite bailiff fee as per direction of this August Court.
Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper, also be awarded to the petitioner.

Petitioner
Through
COUNSEL

Petition for Cancellation of Bail before High Court (In Pakistan)

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

Crl. Misc No. BC/2010
In the matter of:

Khaqaan Danial s/o Allah Ditta, r/o Upper Aliot, Tehsil Murree, District Rawalpindi.

…Petitioner
VERSUS

1. Muhammad Usman s/o Muhammad Zakir, Caste Abbasi, r/o Upper Aliot, Murree District Rawalpindi.
2. The State.
…Respondents

PETITION UNDER SECTION 497(5) Cr.P.C FOR THE CANCELLATION OF BAIL IN CASE FIR NO. 499 DATED 18-09-2007, OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302/24 PPC REGISTERED AT P.S MURREE, DISTRICT RAWALPINDI

Respectfully Sheweth!

1. That the petitioner is an unfortunate father of Tasleem Akhtar (deceased) and complainant of aforementioned FIR. The brief facts leading to the instant petition are that on 18-09-07, respondent No.1 brutally assassinated the young daughter of the petitioner with the help of his mother and sister. (Copy of FIR is annexed herewith as Annexure-A)
2. That the respondent No.1 filed his bail after arrest which was entrusted to the court of Mr. Khalid Mehmood Ranjha, the learned ASJ Rawalpindi who was pleased to grant his bail on the ground of tender-age while relying upon a fabricated school leaving certificate and that of NADRA record. The respondent No.1 was allowed bail on 21-11-08. (Copy of bail granting order is annexed herewith as Annexure-B)
3. That during the course of trial, the respondent No.1 moved an application for his trial under Juvenile Justice System which was objected by the prosecution and the learned trial judge was pleased to send the matter to DHQ Rawalpindi for holding of ossification test of respondent No.1.
4. That on the direction of the learned ASJ, a medical board was convened for ossification test of the respondent No.1 and the medical board submitted their report bearing Sr. No.262 dated 29-04-09 and hold the age of the respondent No.1 between 22 – 25 years at the time of occurrence.
5. That the respondent No.1 was allowed bail after arrest merely on the ground of tender-age (less than 18 years) whereas the ossification test (age-determination) reveals that the age of the respondent No.1 as minimum 20-years at the time of occurrence i.e 18-09-2007. (Copy of age assessment report dated 29-04-09 is annexed herewith as Annexure-C)
6. That after getting the bail after arrest granted by the learned ASJ Rawalpindi, the respondent No.1 always misused the concession of bail and at times, criminally, illegally and forcibly trespassed into the house of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner, his wife and daughter of dire consequences which includes murder of the petitioner and his family members regarding which the matter was reported to Numberdar of the area who also verified the occurrence and submitted his report on 11-12-2008 which is also available in Judicial File.
7. That the matter does not end here, the respondent No.1 continued threatening the petitioner and his family members, resultantly, the petitioner has filed a petition U/S 22-A and 22-B of Cr.P.C and sought the indulgence of learned ASJ for getting a criminal case registered against the respondent No.1 and the same was entrusted to Mr. Sajjad Hussain Sindhar, learned ASJ who disposed off the petition while giving a direction to the concerned police on 13-06-09 and consequently and ultimately a FIR bearing No.373 dated 25-07-09 offence U/S 506 PPC was registered at P.S Murree District Rawalpindi against respondent No.1 (Copy of petition U/S 22-A along with order dated 13-06-09 and FIR bearing No.373 is annexed herewith as Annexure-D)
8. That the heinous offence of murder was committed by respondent No.1 who is a hardened and disparate criminal, was not entitle to any concession or grace therefore, the grant of bail not only prejudice to the prosecution but also the prosecution witnesses are under pressure, threat and coercion at the hands of respondent No.1.
9. That the act of respondent No.1 of threatening the petitioner and his family members, amounts to temper the prosecution evidence and the prosecution witnesses are under pressure, coercion and apprehends a danger to their lives at the hands of respondent No.1.
10. That the petitioner filed petition Under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C for cancellation of the bail of respondent No.1 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi which was declined vide order dated 29-10-2009 by Mr. Sajjad Hussain Sindhar, the learned ASJ Rawalpindi, hence this petition. (Copy of petition along with order dated 29-10-09 is annexed herewith as Annexure-E)
11. That the petitioner seeks the cancellation of bail of respondent No.1 inter-alia on the followings:-

GROUNDS

a. That the learned ASJ declined the cancellation petition of the petitioner on surmises and conjectures.
b. That there is sufficient material on record to connect the respondent No.1 with the commission of crime and specific role was attributed to him in the FIR.
c. That the respondent No.1 is nominated in the FIR with specific role, hence the order dated 29-10-2009 of the learned ASJ Rawalpindi is without any lawful justification.
d. That the order passed by learned ASJ Rawalpindi is illegal, arbitrary one and against the norms of the natural justice.
e. That the learned ASJ Rawalpindi did not consider the valuable evidence available on the record.
f. That there is no malafide on the part of the present petitioner and enmity of the police with the respondent No.1 was pointed out, hence the respondent No.1 is not entitled to any concession of bail.
g. That there is reasonable chance for tampering with prosecution evidence by the respondent No.1, thus he is not entitled to any concession of bail.
h. That there is the reasonable chance of absconsion of the respondent No.1.
i. That the learned ASJ Rawalpindi also ignored the all other important aspect of the case, which is necessary for rejection of the bail.
j. That the respondent No.1 is misusing the grant of bail and continuously threatening the petitioner for dire consequences and also put undue pressure upon the petitioner for the compromise.
k. That if the bail granting order passed by the learned ASJ Rawalpindi is not recalled, the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss.

In the above mentioned circumstances, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the instant petition may kindly be accepted and bail granting order dated 21-11-2008 to the respondent No.1 may kindly be recalled and post arrest bail granted to him may kindly be cancelled which is in the interest of the justice.
Petitioner
Through

COUNSEL

Exemption Petition in Writ Petition before High Court (In Pakistan)

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

C.M No. /2010
In
Crl. Misc No. B/2010
In the matter of:

Karam Ellahi V/s The State

EXEMPTION PETITION
Respectfully Sheweth!
1. That the petitioner has filed the above titled bail petition before this Honourable Court, the contents of which may kindly be read as integral part of this petition.
2. That the petitioner has not able to produce attested copies of certain documents along with the aforementioned petition before this Honourable Court.

In the circumstances, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that the instant petition may kindly be accepted and the petitioner may graciously be exempted from filing of certified copies of certain documents along with the captioned bail petition.
Petitioner
Through
COUNSEL

Post Arrest Bail before High Court (In Pakistan)

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

Crl. Misc No. B/2010
In the matter of:

Karam Ellahi son of Pohla Khan, resident of House No.F-459, Islamila Abad, Wah Cantt, Tehsil Taxila, District Rawalpindi (Presently confined in Central Jail, Adiala, Rawalpindi)

…Petitioner
VERSUS

The State. …Respondent

PETITION UNDER SECTION 497 Cr.P.C FOR THE GRANT OF POST ARREST BAIL IN CASE FIR NO. 643 DATED 16-09-2009, OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 489-F PPC REGISTERED AT P.S WAH CANTT, DISTRICT RAWALPINDI

Respectfully Sheweth!

1. That the petitioner has been falsely and maliciously roped in this case due to ulterior motives by the complainant in connivance with local police and is confined in Central Jail, Adiala, Rawalpindi. (Attested copy of FIR along with better copy is annexed herewith as Annexure-A)
2. That the petitioner filed petition for bail after arrest in the court of Ellaqa Magistrate, P.S Wah Cantt, which was declined vide order dated 29-09-2009. (Attested copy of bail petition along with order dated 29-09-09 is annexed herewith as Annexure-B)
3. That the petitioner also filed petition for bail after arrest in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge at Taxila, District Rawalpindi, which too was declined vide order dated 09-10-2009. (Attested copy of bail petition along with order dated 09-10-09 is annexed herewith as Annexure-C)
4. That the petitioner seeks post arrest bail inter-alia on the following:-

GROUNDS

a. That the brief facts leading to the instant petition are that the petitioner entered into a Sale Agreement regarding land measuring 7-Kanals & 5-Marlas situated in Revenue Estate of Sagra Brahma comprising in Khasra No.531, 532 for total consideration of Rs.25,15,000/-. (Copy of Sale Agreement is annexed herewith as Annexure-D)
b. That later on, when it transpired to the petitioner that the subject matter (Land measuring 7-Kanals & 5-Marlas) was owned and possessed by one Faiz Alam and the complainant of the instant case i.e Khalid Mehmood has nothing to do with the land and in the first instance he objected the fraudulent conduct of the complainant in a Jirga where he conceded his misrepresentations and requested the petitioner to directly execute the sale deed in his favour by the said Faiz Alam and the petitioner executed sale deed bearing No.4323/1 dated 30-06-2009 duly registered with Sub Registrar Taxila, District Rawalpindi after making the payment of whole consideration amount to the said executant i.e. Faiz Alam. (Copy of registered Sale Deed is annexed herewith as Annexure-E)
c. That after the execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner’s party, the petitioner asked the complainant for returning back the cheques issued by him but he lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and assured the petitioner that he would not present the same in the bank nor would proceed against the petitioner in any manner.
d. That the petitioner fairly believes and understands that after prevailing human greed upon the complainant, he in order to usurp and grab more money from the petitioner, presented the same in the concerned bank and after getting dishonoured the same, implicated the petitioner in a false, frivolous and fabricated instant case.
e. That the order passed by the courts below are against the law and facts of the case.
f. That there is sufficient material available leading the petitioner’s innocence and his false implication in the instant case.
g. That the order passed by the courts below are illegal, arbitrary one and against all the norms of the natural justice.
h. That the malafide of the petitioner is crystal clear from the averments of the FIR that too in the light of the sale agreement and that of registered sale deed.
i. That the investigation of the case has been completed and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.
j. That it is a case of further inquiry and probe and it is yet to be seen at the trial stage that which of the version is to be correct.
k. That the petitioner is the first offender in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is not a previous convict and having no criminal record. In the said circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
l. That the offence mentioned in the FIR does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
m. That the petitioner is a victim of malicious prosecution and have no concern whatsoever with the alleged offence.
n. That the bail cannot be withheld as punishment to the petitioner.
o. That the petitioner belongs to a respectable family, previously non-convict and ready to furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of this Honourable Court.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the instant bail petition may kindly be accepted and petitioner may kindly be granted bail after arrest till the final disposal of the case.

Petitioner
Through

COUNSEL

Model of Written Statement of any Suit (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF MISS UZMA AHSIN, CIVIL JUDGE, RAWALPINDI


In the matter of:


Sheikh Muhammad Tariq V/s Saher Mehmood


(Suit for the Recovery of Rs.90,000/-)


WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT



Respectfully Sheweth!


PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS


1. That the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands hence the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
2. That the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from this Honourable Court and wants to gain undue benefits hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. That the plaintiff has filed the instant suit just to pressurize, humiliate and harass the answering defendant hence the instant suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. That the affidavit annexed by the plaintiff with the instant suit is totally bogus, frivolous, fake and self made document and having no value in the eyes of law.
5. That the defendant never ever affixed any kind of thumb impression on the affidavit given by the plaintiff before this Honourable Court and actually the plaintiff himself affixed the thumb impression and wrongly stated that the same was done by the defendant.
6. That the defendant is liable to get special cost U/S 35-A of CPC.

ON FACTS

1. Para No. 1 is admitted to the extent that the defendant was sent through Al-Qasim Recruitment Agency but neither he knows Sheikh Tariq / defendant nor taken any money from said Sheikh Tariq, hence denied.
2. Para No.2 is not admitted, hence denied.
3. Para No.3 is not admitted. Actually the owner of Al-Qasim Recruitment Center sent the defendant on work visa to Malaysia, he took away Rs.250,000/- from the defendant hence the instant para is totally incorrect and denied.
4. Para No.4 is not admitted. The plaintiff never asked the defendant to pay the said amount and the alleged affidavit was actually made by the plaintiff himself and the defendant has no concern whatsoever with the plaintiff at all.
5. Para No.5 is incorrect hence denied. The plaintiff never asked the defendant to pay the said amount so the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and self contradictory, the defendant has never threatened the plaintiff at all.
6. Para No.6 is incorrect hence denied. There is no question of damages whatsoever.
7. Para No.7 is not admitted. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit against the defendant.
8. Para No.8 is admitted to the extent of jurisdiction, rest is denied.
9. Para No.9 is admitted to the extent of court fee, rest is denied.


PRAYER

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with cost.


Defendant
Through
COUNSEL

SUIT FOR DECLARATION, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE BANKING COURT, RAWALPINDI


Ghulam Nabi s/o Ghulam Rasool, r/o House No.AA-1001 Mohallah Workshapi, Rawalpindi.
…Plaintiff
VERSUS

1. City Bank through its Manager, Blue Area, Islamabad.
2. Collection Officer, City Bank Blue Area,, Islamabad.

…Defendants

SUIT FOR DECLARATION, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION


Respectfully Sheweth!


1. That the plaintiff is the resident of above mentioned address.
2. That the plaintiff used facility of Credit Card bearing No. 5428314003406004 from the defendant’s bank in 2008 loan limits Rs.425,000/-
3. That the plaintiff paid regular installments before and after business loss to the defendants and no more outstanding principle amount against the plaintiff is due.
4. That the plaintiff’s business fully destroyed.
5. That the defendants changed the schedule of interest yearly with malafide and ulterior motives.
6. That the plaintiff’s children are school going and the plaintiff is now not able to afford the fee and expenditure of them and the other expenditures of house hold matters.
7. That the plaintiff paid principle amount to the defendants take borrow to the friends and relatives.
8. That in spite of repeated requests to the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendants are not giving detail of the deposited amount and are bent upon to forcible recovery of alleged loan amount and flatly refused to accede to the genuine request of the plaintiff.
9. That the business of the plaintiff flopped and now plaintiff is not able to refund the huge interest to the defendants.
10. That a week ago, the defendants extended threats for dire consequences including adopting of coercive measures against the plaintiff hence this suit.
11. That the cause of action finally accrued to the plaintiff yesterday, when defendant’s staff members visited the resident and business place of the plaintiff and extended threats to the plaintiff and flatly refused to exceed to the genuine request of the plaintiff.
12. That the plaintiff is the resident of Rawalpindi hence this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
13. That the value of the suit for the purposes of the court fee and jurisdiction is assessed at Rs.15000/- which is exempted from the court fee.

PRAYER

In the circumstances, it is therefore, very humbly prayed that the following decrees may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
a. Declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has paid the principal loan amount to the defendants and their claim of huge markup is against the law and rights of the plaintiff.
b. A decree of rendition of accounts may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
c. A decree of permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from threatening and harassing and pressurizing the plaintiff or adopting the coercive measures against the plaintiff or with malafide and ulterior motives demanding illegal money or forcibly recover the amount from the plaintiff or sending their officials at the business place / resident of the plaintiff without due process of law till final decision of the suit. It is further prayed that defendants to be directed to negotiate with the plaintiff and not recover interest amount to the plaintiff, if any interest due against the plaintiff. Because the plaintiff business has been destroyed.
d. Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems just and proper may also be awarded.

Plaintiff
Through

COUNSEL

Criminal Revision Petition (Before Sessions Judge) (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI

In the matter of:

Nasir Mehmood son of Muhammad Arif, Caste Qureshi, resident of House No. CB-1204, Khayaban-e-Mira Bukhsh, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi.
…Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State.
2. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Yazdani, the learned Ellaqa Magistrate, P.S Saddar Berooni, Rawalpindi.
…Respondents

CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 435/439-A Cr.P.C FROM THE ORDER DATED 11-01-2010 PASSED BY MR. GHULAM MUSTAFA YAZDANI, LEARNED ELLAQA MAGISTRATE, P.S SADDAR BEROONI, RAWALPINDI WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPLICATION U/S 540 CR.P.C AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER


Respectfully Sheweth:-

1. That the petitioner is complainant of case FIR No. 340 dated 29-07-08 Offence U/S 506/379/447/148/149 PPC P.S Saddar Berooni, Rawalpindi and the trial is under progress in the court of Learned Magistrate i.e. respondent No.2 and is fixed for 13-01-2010 for recording of statement U/S 342 Cr.P.C.
2. That the petitioner moved an application U/S 540 Cr.P.C for re-summoning the investigating officer (PW3) and for getting the subject matter i.e. FIR bearing No. 340 to be exhibited as the evidence of the I.O (PW3) was recorded on 09-01-2010 but due to the lack of proper assistance at the bar / inadvertently the subject FIR bearing No.340 could not be exhibited which reveals from the statement of the I.O (PW3).
3. That on 09-01-2010 after the recording of evidence of PW3 i.e. Investigating Officer, the matter was adjourned for 11-01-2010 for recording of statement U/S 342 Cr.P.C as the intervening, there was weekly holiday being Sunday.
4. That when it transpired to the petitioner that omission has been done in not getting the FIR exhibited, the petitioner moved an application U/S 540 Cr.P.C for recalling of the investigating officer (PW3) and for getting the subject FIR exhibited which was declined by the learned respondent No.2 vide order dated 11-01-2010. (Copy of challan along with complete order sheet, FIR and application U/S 540 Cr.P.C are annexed herewith for the kind perusal by this August Court)
5. That the order passed by the learned respondent No.2 seems arbitrary, whimsical and not tenable in law. The learned Magistrate without giving any reason branded the essential witnesses whose reexamining and getting the FIR exhibited is necessary for the just decision of the case but the learned Magistrate passed the order in haste that too in a whimsical manner.
6. That it is pertinent to mention here that the whole case of the petitioner being the complainant, is based on the subject FIR mentioned hereinabove and in case the application dated 11-01-10 of the petitioner is not allowed, then the petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss and as the whole case will collapsed in non-existence of the subject matter i.e. FIR No.340.
7. That the re-summoning of the investigating officer is pivotal and essential for the just decision of the case and the impugned order of the learned respondent No.2 is capricious and untenable in the eyes of law by not re-summoning the essential witness that too declining to exhibit the subject matter i.e. FIR. Section 540 Cr.P.C having two parts and the second part of the provision is salutary and mandatory in nature and there is no option left for the learned Magistrate / respondent No.2 except to summon the witness and to get the FIR exhibit therefore, the re-summoning of the witness is essential for the just decision of the case and for ends of the justice.
8. That apart from section 540 Cr.P.C, Section 244 of Cr.P.C is mandatory for the learned respondent No.2, to hear the complainant and to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and this provision is mandatory and no discretion is left with the Magistrate to decline the complainant for production of any essential document. The learned respondent No.2 understands that mere mention of the FIR in statement of the investigating officer is enough and there will be no effect if the same is not exhibited.
9. That Section 540 Cr.P.C is quite exhaustive and the trial court should be empowered to call or re-call any witness at any stage of the trial if his testimony is considered relevant and is necessary to reach the truth and the provision too is obligatory, The court has wide power to summon the witnesses. The learned court below has not given justifiable reason to reject the petition under section 540 Cr.P.C.
10. That the complainant under section 244 Cr.P.C is competent to produce the evidence and the court is under obligation to receive the same. Moreover any documents desirable for the purpose of trial or proceedings is permissible in law to produce the same in the court.
11. That the ultimate court of the country has laid down in 2002 SCMR Page-468 in case Abdul Hamid Khan V/s Muhammad Nawaz Kasuri which is as under:-
“Production of document---Complainant while making his statement in his private complaint wanted to bring on record a number of documents, but the trial court returned the documents by observing that the same were not relevant---Complainant then filed an application in which 22 documents were listed which he wanted to be received in evidence---Trial court dismissed the said application against which a revision petition filed by the complainant had also been dismissed by the High Court through he impugned judgment---View taken by trial court that the only provision in the Criminal Procedure Code as regards production of additional evidence was S.540 Cr.P.C as such the documents could not be allowed to be produced amounted to refusal to exercise jurisdiction otherwise vested in the Court---“
12. That superior courts of Pakistan have also laid down low on the point in the following judgments:
PLJ-2004 SC Page-642
S. 540 Cr.P.C empowers trial court to call or re-call any witnesses at any stage of trial if his testimony was considered relevant and necessary to reach the truth, High Court was wrong in holding that the trial court is summoning and holding Patwari and Girdawar as court witnesses had filled lacuna of prosecution case. Statements of those witnesses were not only relevant but necessary to decide controversy in question. Section 540 Cr.P.C clearly enabled the trial court to adopt such course.
NLR 2002 Cr. 62
(a) S.540-Calling of additional evidence under section 540 Cr.P.C is not always conditioned on defense for prosecution making an application for the purpose. It is duty of the court to do complete justice between the parties. Carelessness or ignoring one party or other or delay that may result in conclusion of the case should not be a hindrance in achieving the object of doing complete justice by allowing additional evidence.
(b) S.540-The court is bound as second party of section 540 to examine a witness by ignoring technical / formal objection as to do justice and to avoid mis-carriage of justice is obligatory for court.
(c) S-540-The court is under duty to examine additional evidence under section 540 Cr.P.C irrespective of criticism as to filling up lacunas or partiality of the court.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the instant petition may kindly be accepted and the order dated 11-01-10 passed by the respondent No.2 may graciously be set-aside and the application of the petitioner dated 11-01-10 may graciously be allowed.
It is further prayed that in the meanwhile, proceedings before the trial court i.e. respondent No.2 may graciously be stayed.
Petitioner
Through

COUNSEL

Ejectment Petition (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE / RENT CONTROLLER, RAWALPINDI


In the matter of:

Syed Ali Hassan son of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah, resident of House No.44-B-III, Zafar Akbar Road, Tulsa Chowk, Lalazar Colony, Rawalpindi.

…Petitioner
VERSUS

1. Ghulam Muhammad son of Gul Shah, resident of Sultanabad, Tehsil Charsaddah, District Peshawar, presently at Farooqia Mohallah, Dhoke Matkal, Rawalpindi.
2. Feroz Khan son of not known to the petitioner, occupant of Shop No.377-A/3, Saddat Market, Opposite Dispensary Ground, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi.

…Respondents

EJECTMENT PETITION UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE CANTONMENT’S RENT RESTRICTION ACT 1963 FOR THE EVICTION OF THE RESPONDENT FROM SHOP NO.377-A/3, SADDAT MARKET, OPPOSITE DISPENSARY GROUND, TENCH BHATTA, RAWALPINDI


The petitioner Respectfully Sheweth as under:

1. That the petitioner is the owner and landlord of Shop No.377-A/3, Saddat Market, Opposite Dispensary Ground, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi which is situated in 03-Marlas which was gifted by Syed Mazhar Hussain to the petitioner vide registered Gift Deed dated 31-10-1995, while the respondent No.1 was a tenant in the said premises under the petitioner at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month where he was running his business. Thereafter the respondent No.1 further sublet the said shop to the respondent No.2 without the permission of petitioner.
2. That at present, the petitioner is unemployed herein Pakistan. The petitioner in good faith requires the suit premises which is in possession of the respondent No.2, for his own personal bonafide use and occupation.
3. That the petitioner is not in possession of any shop situated in Cantonment Area, Rawalpindi.
4. That the suit premises is suitable for the requirement of the petitioner.
5. That the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent No.1 for eviction of the suit premises but he neither respond to the legal action nor vacated the suit premises.
6. That the respondents have made themselves liable for eviction from the suit premises on the grounds mentioned above.
7. That the cause of action arose when the respondent No.1 has become a willful and chronic rent defaulter, secondly when he further sublet the shop to the respondent No.2 and the same is continuing day by day.
8. That the suit premises is situated in Rawalpindi Cantonment Area hence this learned court has jurisdiction to entertain the same.
9. That the prescribed court fee of Rs.15/- has been affixed on the petition for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.

PRAYER

In the circumstances, therefore, it is prayed that ejectment petition may kindly be accepted with costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and respondents be ordered to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. Shop No.377-A/3, Saddat Market, Opposite Dispensary Ground, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi to the petitioner.

Petitioner
Through

COUNSEL

Suit for Declaration (For Legal Heriship Certificate) (In Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAWALPINDI


Muhammad Inaam-ul-Haq Alvi son of Qazi Zafar-ul-Haq Alvi, resident of House No.O-1024, Mohallah Ghazi Road, Haripura, Rawalpindi.
…Plaintiff
VERSUS

Public at large. …Defendant

SUIT FOR DECLARATION

Respectfully Sheweth!

1. That the real brother of the plaintiff namely Qazi Muhammad Anwaar-ul-Haq son of Qazi Zafar-ul-Haq Alvi died on 06-12-1993.
2. That the said deceased left behind the following legal heirs:
a. Khadija Khatoon (Widow)
b. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Alvi.
c. Muhammad Inaam-ul-Haq Alvi.
d. Muhammad Ikram-ul-Haq Alvi. (Brothers)
e. Muhammad Ehtsham-ul-Haq Alvi.
f. Mst. Salma Khatoon.
g. Mst. Attiya Malik. (Sisters)
h. Mst. Wasaeema Khatoon

3. That there is no legal heir except the above said persons (affidavit is annexed with this suit)
4. That out of the wedlock of the deceased with Khadija Khatoon, no issue was born and he solemnized only one marriage and that too with the said Khadija Khatoon.
5. That the deceased also left behind the following property:
· Plot vide Membership No.76-D, bearing letter No.3910, situated in Municipal Corporation Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Rawalpindi.
6. That the plaintiff required the declaration to the effect that the plaintiff alongwith others above mentioned persons are lawful legal heirs of deceased by the competent court of law and no other person is legal heir of deceased except them and if they are not declared as legal heirs of the deceased named above then they shall suffer an irreparable loss.
7. That the cause of action accrued when the real brother of the plaintiff died which is still continuing.
8. That the property is situated at Rawalpindi hence this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter.
9. That the prescribed court fee has been affixed on the plaint.

PRAYER

In view of above, it is most humbly prayed that the decree for declaration to the effect that the following persons are legal heirs of deceased Qazi Muhammad Anwaar-ul-Haq son of Qazi Zafar-ul-Haq Alvi.
a. Khadija Khatoon (Widow)
b. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Alvi.
c. Muhammad Inaam-ul-Haq Alvi.
d. Muhammad Ikram-ul-Haq Alvi. (Brothers)
e. Muhammad Ehtsham-ul-Haq Alvi.
f. Mst. Salma Khatoon.
g. Mst. Attiya Malik. (Sisters)
h. Mst. Wasaeema Khatoon

And no any person except them is legal heir of deceased, in the interest of justice.
Any other relief, which this Honourable Court may deems fit may also be granted to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff
Through

COUNSEL

PRE ARREST BAIL (IN PAKISTAN)

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI


In the matter of:


Tahir Hussain son of Aftab Hussain, resident of House No. 222-A, Mohallah Khadim Hussain Road, Tariq Abad, Rawalpindi Cantt.

…Petitioner

VERSUS


The State. …Respondent




PETITION FOR PRE ARREST BAIL U/S 498 Cr.P.C IN CASE FIR NO.374 DATED 06-05-09, U/S 489-F PPC, REGISTERED AT P.S CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT RAWALPINDI


Respectfully Sheweth:-



1. That the above mentioned case has been registered against the petitioner under the above mentioned offence by the local police however the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever. (Copy of FIR is attached herewith)
2. That now, the petitioner seeks his pre arrest bail inter-alia on the following:-
GROUNDS:-

a. That the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the above-mentioned case and actually the petitioner did not commit any offence whatsoever.
b. That the above mentioned case has been registered against the petitioner with malafide intention and ulterior motives.
c. That a compromise has been effected and the complainant of the instant case has forgiven the petitioner and is ready to furnish an affidavit and also is ready to record his statement before the court.
d. That it is a case of further inquiry and probe and it is yet to be seen at the trial stage that which of the version is to be correct.
e. That the petitioner is a first offender in the alleged occurrence. He is not a previous convict and having no criminal record. In the said circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
f. That the petitioner is a victim of malicious prosecution and he has no concern whatsoever with the alleged offence.
a. That the bail cannot be withheld as punishment to the petitioner.
b. That the offence mentioned in the FIR does not fall within the ambit of Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
c. That the local police is now out to arrest the petitioner and if the petitioner is arrested, he would suffer an irreparable loss to his mind, body and reputation.
d. That the petitioner belongs to a respectable family, previously non-convict and ready to furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of this Honourable Court.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the bail petition may kindly be accepted and petitioner may kindly be granted pre arrest bail till the final disposal of the case.
Ad-interim bail may also prayed for.
Petitioner
Through


COUNSEL

SUIT FOR PARTITION, PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION (in Pakistan)

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAWALPINDI

In the matter of:

1. Syed Ali Hassan.
2. Syed Imtiaz Ali.
3. Syed Ali Mohsin (sons of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah, late)
4. Syeda Hameeda Begum (widow of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah, late)
5. Syeda Tanvir Zohra (daughter of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah, late)
All residents of House No.44-B 3, Zafar Akbar Road, Lalazar Colony, Rawalpindi.
…Plaintiffs
VERSUS

1. Syed Rizwan Ahmed.
2. Syed Adnan Rasool, both sons of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah, late, residents of House No.44-B 3, Zafar Akbar Road, Lalazar Colony, Rawalpindi.
3. Ghulam Murtaza Saghir s/o Malik Ghulam Hussain, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066/3, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi.
4. Agha Shafique s/o Agha Muhammad Attique, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi.
5. Haji Muhammad Ilyas s/o Muhammad Latif, occupant of Shops No.CB-2066/1, CB/2066/2, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi.
6. Muhammad Ayub s/o Muhammad Yaqoob, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066 Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi.
7. Katib Khan s/o Bahat Ali Khan, occupant of Shops No.CB-2066/18, CB-2066/19, CB-2066/17, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi
8. Nadeem Bhatti s/o Ghulam Rabbani Bhatti, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066/16, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi
9. Malik Abdul Nasir s/o Malik Ahmed Shah, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066/15, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi
10. Umar Shahzad s/o Muhammad Irshad, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066/14, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi
11. Saleem s/o Malik Ibrahim, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066/13, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi
12. Muhammad Asif s/o Muhammad Siddique, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066/12, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi.
13. Mirza Ehtisham Baig s/o Mirza Naseem Baig, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066/11, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi
14. Tariq Sultan s/o Fazal Dad, occupant of Shop No.CB-2066/10, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi
15. Tariq Mehmood s/o Abdul Khaliq, occupant of Shop No. No.CB-2066/9, Sadaat Market, Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi
…Defendants

SUIT FOR PARTITION, PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION

Respectfully Sheweth!

1. That the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2 are the legal heirs of one Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah who expired on 04-01-2004 and was owner in possession of land measuring 1-Kanal & 10-Marlas situated at Mouzah Tench, Rawalpindi Cantt by virtue of registered Sale Deed No.264 dated 23-07-1964 duly registered with Sub Registrar Rawalpindi (Copy of Sale Deed is attached herewith for the kind perusal by this Honourable Court) whereupon market known as Sadaat Market (hereinafter called the suit property) was constructed later on and the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2 are co-sharers being the legal heirs of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah. (Copy of Sale Deed is attached herewith for the kind perusal by this Honourable Court)
2. That defendants No.3 to 15 are occupants of suit property in their respective shops as tenants and their monthly rent was agreed / fixed which is being received by defendants No.1 & 2 from the date of the said demise of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah.
3. That the plaintiffs have never ever shown any interest with regard to their shares according to the law of inheritance in the suit property only because they had love and affection with defendants No.1 & 2 and they did not want to disturb their source of income.
4. That now the plaintiffs have come to know that the defendants No.1 & 2 are bent upon to sell the suit property that too without the intimation or consent of the plaintiffs who are legitimate co-sharers and co-owners in the suit property.
5. That an amount of Rs.51,700/- is being received as rent of the suit property by the defendants No.1 & 2 from defendants No.3 to 15 that too from the date of the death of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah.
6. That on having the knowledge of the illegal transaction of sale at the hands of defendants No.1 & 2, the plaintiffs requested the defendants No.1 & 2 not to sale the suit property as they are also co-owners / co-sharers and the suit property can also not been sold until and unless it is portioned property that too through the court.
7. That the plaintiffs have also requested the defendants No.1 & 2 to give the amount according to their respective shares from the rent already received by them from the date of death of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah but they flatly refused to accede the genuine request of the plaintiffs.
8. That the plaintiffs has also convened Jirgas comprising of stalwarts and notables of the vicinity to make the defendants No.1 & 2 agreed to get the suit property partitioned first according to the respective shares under the law of inheritance and then they would be at liberty to sell their respective portion of the suit property but they are adamant to do so, hence this suit.
9. That the cause of action firstly accrued to the plaintiffs against the defendants on the date of death of Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah and lastly upon the refusal of the defendants No.1 to 2 to accede the genuine requests of the plaintiffs and the same is continuing.
10. That the suit property is situated, parties to the suit are also residing in Rawalpindi hence this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
11. That the requisite court fee would be deposited at the time of partition according to the respective shares of the parties.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that a decree for partition of suit property known as Sadaat Market, situated at Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi Cantt may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants No.1 & 2.
It is further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 & 2 from alienating or changing the nature of the suit property in any manner whatsoever and from receiving the monthly rent of the suit property from tenants / defendants No.3 to 15 in future, may graciously be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants No.1 & 2.
It is further prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.1 & 2 to deposit the rent already received by them from defendants No. 3 to 15 from 04-01-2004 till date and in future the defendants No.3 to 15 may graciously be directed to deposit the monthly rent of the suit property in the court directly, may graciously be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.
Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper, may also be awarded to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs
Through


TARIQ MAHMOOD
Advocate High Court
Rawalpindi

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Branches of Law:



Administrative.
Bankruptcy
Business
Communications
Constitutional
Consumer
Criminal law
Cyberspace
Disabilities
Employment
Entertainment
Environmental
Family
Immigration
Intellectual property
International
Personal injury
Product liability
Property
Public Benefits
Qui Tam
Real Estate Law
Torts
Traffic
Trust & Estate Law

Monday, March 1, 2010

DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF LAW


· In general,a rule of being or of conduct, established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts.

· In morals: The will of God as the rule for the disposition and conduct of all responsible beings toward him and toward each other; a rule of living, conformable to righteousness; the rule of action as obligatory on the conscience or moral nature.

· The Jewish or Mosaic code, and that part of Scripture where it is written, in distinction from the gospel; hence, also, the Old Testament.

· An organic rule, as a constitution or charter, establishing and defining the conditions of the existence of a state or other organized community.


· Any edict, decree, order, ordinance, statute, resolution, judicial, decision, usage, etc., or recognized, and enforced, by the controlling authority.

In philosophy and physics: A rule of being, operation, or change, so certain and constant that it is conceived of as imposed by the will of God or by some controlling authority; as, the law of gravitation; the laws of motion; the law heredity; the laws of thought; the laws of cause and effect; law of self-preservation.


· In mathematics: The rule according to which anything, as the change of value of a variable, or the value of the terms of a series, proceeds; mode or order of sequence.
· In arts, works, games, etc.: The rules of construction, or of procedure, conforming to the conditions of success; a principle, maxim; or usage; as, the laws of poetry, of architecture, of courtesy, or of whist.


· Collectively, the whole body of rules relating to one subject, or emanating from one source; including usually the writings pertaining to them, and judicial proceedings under them; as, divine law; English law; Roman law; the law of real property; insurance law.

· Legal science; jurisprudence; the principles of equity; applied justice.


· Trial by the laws of the land; judicial remedy; litigation; as, to go law.

· An oath, as in the presence of a court.

· An exclamation of mild surprise.

· The learned profession that is mastered by graduate study in a law school and that is responsible for the judicial system; "he studied law at Yale"


· A rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society.

· A generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

· The branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do


· Legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity; "there is a law against kidnapping"

· The force of policemen and officers; "the law came looking for him"

· The collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"