Maxim

  1. Audi alteram partem – Party in another matter, i.e, respondent present before the Custodian pertaining to the allotment of evacuee land comprising survey No. 1247 and not to defend his title in land comprising survey No. 899- It cannot be said that respondent was heard before passing the impugned order- principle of audi alteram partem not followed. AJ&K Govt. v. Hakim Bashir Ahmad 1992 SCR 84 (B)
  2. Audi Alteram Partam — Principal of — Any order which is violative of the principle of the Audi Alteram Partem partner would be deemed to be a nullity in the eye of law. Abid Hussain Jafri  v. Azad Govt. and others 1993 SCR 105 (A), 1993 SCR 346(M)
  3. Audi alteram partem — Right of hearing is a rule of universal application — Rule of locus poenitentiae — Order should not be recalled without hearing the affected parties. Abdul Rashid v. D.E.O. and another 1997 SCR 367 (D)
  4. ‘Audi alterm partem’ — Person must show that he was deprived of some right vested in him — Order without jurisdiction does not create any vested right. Rehana Mahmood and 3 others v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 1998 SCR 82 (E)
  5. Omnibus wild allegation without any reference to any provision of law cannot be regarded sufficient to remove the bar of ouster of jurisdiction. Abdul Khaliq v. Abdullah Khan and 4 others 1999 SCR 174 (D)
  6. Ignorance of law is not excuse. M. Hanif  v. Muhammad  Bashir & another 2003 SCR 489 (B)
  7. Civil laws is a law of omission and commission. Azad Govt. v. Faqir H. Shah  2004 SCR 23 (B)
  8. One cannot blow hot and cold in one breath. M. Rasheed v. M. Bashir 2009 SCR 237 (A)
  9. To blow hot and cold in one breath — Contention — That revised PC-1, through which post of Deputy Director (Legal) is abolished is not prepared and approved by the competent authority, therefore, whole process of revised PC-1 is illegal and of no legal effect — The documents brought on record, PC-1, regular PC-1, revised PC-1 and approval of the revised PC-1, depicts that all of them are prepared, checked and approved by the same authorities working under the same law — Argument that PC-1 which creates post is valid and at the same time revised PC-1, prepared, checked and revised by the same authorities, is invalid — Held: Law does not allow any person to blow hot and cold in one breath —- PC-1 which favours the appellant is valid and revised PC-1 is invalid because it is not beneficial for him, such instance has no legal substance or value. Kh. Manzoor Qadir v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2010 SCR 215 (B)
  10. “Salus Populi est Suprema lex” — irrespective of the claims of the parties the prevailing condition of the area does not permit for issuance of any type of license/permit for exploration, extraction, excavation because for petty interest of individual, neither the environment can be irreparably damaged not the right or interest of public at large can be scarified because the safety and interest of public is supreme. This principle of law stated in the legal maxim ‘‘Salus Populi est Suprema lex’’ has got universal recognition and is applied by the Courts since centuries. Ejaz Rasheed v. Azad Govt. & 10 others 2010 SCR 474 (A) AIR 2004 SC 3648 & 1998 SCMR 1462 rel.
  11. Knowledge of the counsel is knowledge of the party. Mst. Bibi Haider Jan (deceased ) through L.H. v. S. Waqas H. Sh. 2016 SCR 1347 (B)1997 SCR 264, 2003 SCR 240 & 2010 SCR 528 rel.
  12. “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (I)
  13. —nemo judex in sua causa—no person should be judge in his own cause—the Prime Minister, as opposition leader filed writ to impose major penalty of dismissal from service—later on, as authority, he cannot act as judge in his own cause—- From this angle too, the act of the authority is not justified as previously he himself filed writ petition against the appellants for imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service and now after holding the charge of authority how he can act as a judge in his own cause. It may be observed here that as per legal maxim nemo judex in sua causa, no person should be judge in his own cause, thus, theauthority cannot be allowed to act as a judge in the present matter. Ch Khalid Sultan vs Competent Authority & others 2018 SCR 144 (D)
  14.  —Audi alteram partem—right of hearing—cancellation of plot without affording opportunity of hearing—after issuance of NOC in favour of the appellant, a right accrued in the favour of the appellant—Held: proper course has not been adopted while cancelling the allotment order without hearing the appellant. Supreme Court accepted appeal, set aside the Order of the Authority and the judgment of the High Court and referred the matter to the Authority to hear the appellant and thereafter, decide the fate of plot. Jameel Ahmed Saeed v. Director Estate Management & 2 others 2020 SCR 282 (A)
  15. —Law helps the vigilant and not the indolent. Khizar Umar Khan Versus Azad Govt. & 14 others 2021 SCR 244 (C)
  16. —Incumbit Proatio qui decit noqui negat—means, proof lies on him who says, not on him who denies. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541(V)
  17. — quoted—“It is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted”. Muhammad Shahbaz v. Nasarullah Khan & others2023 SCR 384 (K)
  18. — “it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted”. See Muhammad Saeed versus The State & 12 others 2023 SCR 1006 (H)
  19. — نیست عالج راہ کردہ خود — the party at fault cannot be given credit of his own mischief as he should not be allowed to reap gain at the cost of others. Muhammad Ali & others vs Azad Govt. & others 2024 SCR 94 (A)
  20.  — autrefois acquit—double jeopardy—see Muhammad Ishaq Naz & another vs Saima Abdul Rehman 2024 SCR 331(C)
error: Content is protected !!