Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199----Ex-parte decree, setting aside of---Serious allegations of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation---Procedural defect, identification of---Non-framing of issues---Summary disposal of application under S. 12(2) C.P.C. by the Trial Court and non-interference by the revisional court---Held, that Trial Court correctly identified the procedural defect in the ex-parte judgment and decree, but failed to adopt the proper procedure while deciding the application under S.12(2) C.P.C.---Respondents had disclosed serious allegations of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation culminating in the said judgment and decree, thus, summary disposal of the application was not justified---Trial Court should have framed necessary issues and record evidence of the parties, particularly as the ex-parte judgment and decree had also been passed without recording evidence and such a procedural lapse undermined the integrity of the judicial process and warranted a more detailed inquiry---Trial Court erred in law by summarily disposing of the application under S.12(2) C.P.C., as the allegations raised by the respondents required adherence to procedural requirements to ensure a just and fair adjudication---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to allow the relevant parties to become a necessary part, frame proper issues, allow them to lead evidence and then decide the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. afresh in accordance with law. Muhammad Akram Malik v. Dr. Ghulam Rabbani and others PLD 2006 SC 773 and Lahore Development Authority through Director General v. Arif Manzoor Qureshi and others 2006 SCMR 1530 rel. Tanvir Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Iftikhar for Respondents Nos. 5, 7 and 8. Abid Aziz Rajori, Assistant Advocate General for the State. Order Jawad Hassan, J .--- The Petitioner, through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution") has impugned the orders dated 29.03.2019 and 19.09.2018, passed by learned Courts below; whereby the Respondents' Application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/decree holder filed a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction, which was decreed in his favour vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016. Whereupon the Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 filed an Application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parte judgment and decree on the ground that the same was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The learned trial Court accepted this Application vide order dated 19.09.2018 by setting aside the aforesaid judgment and decree. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the Petitioner filed a civil revision, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 29.03.2019. Hence, this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the learned Courts below committed a grave error in law by accepting the Respondents' Application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. without adhering to the prescribed legal procedure. He highlighted that the impugned orders were passed without framing issues or recording evidence of the Parties, which was essential for the just adjudication of the matter. He further submitted that the Respondents had raised significant legal and factual questions in their Application, which could not have been resolved without conducting a proper analysis. He added that the Respondents raised certain legal as well as factual questions in the Application under Section 12(2) C.P.C., which could not be decided and the decree in favour of the Petitioner could not be set aside summarily. In conclusion, he prayed that the impugned orders be set aside, and the Petitioner's rights under the decree be upheld in accordance with the law. 4. In response, learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently objected to the maintainability of this Petition and defended the impugned orders. He argued that the suit property comprises of more than 8,000 kanals of undivided land, in which Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 are co-sharers as "Jade" owners. He further contended that the Petitioner, in collusion with the Defendants, managed to procure the impugned ex-parte judgment and decree within just one month of the institution of the suit, which casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. In light of these facts, the learned Courts below have rightly allowed the Respondents' Application under Section 12(2) C.P.C., thereby setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. 5. Heard. Record perused. 6. The basic defect in this case is that the Petitioner filed the suit by impleading only Respondents Nos. 9 to 11 (State Functionaries) as "Defendants," while excluding Respondents Nos. 1 to 8, who are allegedly co-sharers of the suit property. The exclusion of the alleged co-sharers from the array of parties creates a serious procedural flaw, especially the nature of the claim and the relief sought in the suit. The prayer of the suit reads as follows: "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff are absolute owner in possession of suit land measuring 732 kanals 12 marlas bearing khewat No.322, khatooni No.959/1, Khasra No.2129, situated at Mouza Mughal, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi, vide written Memorandum of Gift dated 27.01.2016 and no one else has any right, title or interest with the suit land and a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to incorporate the name of plaintiff as owner of suit land in their relevant record, may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants with costs." This prayer, seeking an absolute declaration of ownership and mandatory directions only against the Additional Collector, Tehsildar and Patwari Circle, Rawalpindi, clearly impacts the rights of other potential stakeholders, particularly Respondents Nos. 1 to 8, who were neither impleaded nor provided an opportunity to contest the claim. Such a procedural lapse goes to the root of the matter and undermines the integrity of the judicial process. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has rightly mentioned these facts in the operative paragraph of the impugned order dated 19.09.2018, in the following manner: "As per record, the suit property is joint property whereas main suit was filed only by the Respondent No.1 without impleading all the co-sharers in the suit. Also the very fact of status of suit property as joint property was concealed from then trial Court. These revelations alone are sufficient to qualify the viability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016. Hence, while granting this application filed under Section 12(2) C.P.C. the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016 is hereby set aside and the case is reopened. The plaintiff is directed to submit amended plaint after impleading all the co-sharers as party to the suit on 25.09.2018." Although the learned trial Court correctly identified the procedural defect in the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016, but it failed to adopt the proper procedure while deciding the Application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. The Respondents had disclosed serious allegations of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation culminating in the said judgment and decree, therefore, summary disposal of the Application was not justified. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Muhammad Akram Malik v. Dr. Ghulam Rabbani and others" (PLD 2006 SC 773), wherein it has been observed that "we are of the considered view that misrepresentation and fraud have been alleged in the application preferred under section 12(2) C.P.C. as is indicative from para 6 of the application which has been reproduced in the order impugned. In fact the learned trial court has not appreciated the contents of application in the light of provisions as contained in section 12(2) C.P.C. and dismissed the same in a casual and cursory manner. In view of the circumstances of the case and allegations levelled in the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. it should have not been dismissed summarily. The learned High Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and the order impugned being well based does not warrant interference as no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner who would have ample opportunities to canvas his point of view and subsistence his claim and rebut the allegation of misrepresentation and fraud and before the Court concerned. "Moreover, the trial Court should have to frame necessary issues and record evidence of the parties, particularly as the ex-parte judgment and decree had also been passed without recording evidence. This procedural lapse undermines the integrity of the judicial process and warranted a more detailed inquiry. In this regard guidance is sought from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Lahore Development Author ity through Director-General V. Arif Manzoor Qoureshi and others (2006 SCMR 1530), wherein it has been held that "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the available record. We find that the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. of the petitioner disclosed serious allegations of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation culminating into the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1998. From the very nature of the allegations of the petitioner, summary disposal of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. was not justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the trial Court to have framed necessary issues and recorded evidence of the parties particularly when the judgment and decree, dated 22-7-1998 had also been passed without recording evidence of the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Director-General of the Authority brought to our notice that an inquiry had also been held and finalized as directed by this Court in respect of the property in dispute. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is not sustainable at law." Hence, the learned trial Court erred in law by summarily disposing of the Application under Section 12(2) C.P.C., as the allegations raised by the Respondents required adherence to procedural requirements to ensure a just and fair adjudication. 7. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 29.03.2019 and 19.09.2018, passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside; and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction to allow the relevant parties to become a necessary party, frame proper issues, allow them to lead evidence and then decide the Application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. afresh in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months. SA/F-4/L Petition allowed.

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss.16, 32(1), 79(1), 138, 179 & 196---Import Policy Order, 2022, Para. 5---Customs Appellate Tribunal---Jurisdiction---Permission to re-export---Consignment of respondent / importer consisted of scrap of batteries imported from Bahrain---Authorities confiscated the consignment and also imposed fine on respondent / importer as it contained some scrap of Indian origin which was banned in Pakistan---Customs Appellate Tribunal set aside orders passed by authorities and allowed respondent / importer to re-export the consignment---Validity---Customs Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing re-export of the goods in question as "Frustrated Cargo" in terms of S.138 of Customs Act, 1969, as the Tribunal was not hearing an appeal filed under S.194A(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1969 against an order of outright confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty by Adjudicating Authority under S.179 of Customs Act, 1969---Order passed by authorities had nothing to do with grant or rejection of an application filed under S.138 of Customs Act, 1969, nor it could have been a matter of appeal so preferred by any of the aggrieved parties---Customs Appellate Tribunal fell in error while exercising such jurisdiction---Consignment in question was of battery scrap of different origins (Korea, U.A.E., Vitenman, China and USA) and was shipped for Bahrain as one consignment---Possibility of shipment of batteries of different origins could not be ruled out, as finally the goods were scrap for all practical and legal purposes---Goods in question, even if they had been released, were not supposed to be directly consumed or sold in market as respondent / importer was running approved industry and was to use battery scrap for extracting lead for its further use in various industries---High Court set aside penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority which stood remitted---Reference application was allowed accordingly. Driveline Motors Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2022 PTD 363 distinguished. BP Exploration Co. (Libya) v. Hunt [1974] 1 WLR 783; affirmed in [1983] 2 AC 352 ref. Khlil Ullah Jakhro for Applicant. Ahmed Masood for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th December, 2024.

Summary: (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 177 & 227---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11 O.XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Intra Court Appeal---Rejecting of plaint---Audit, notice of---Scope---Appellant / plaintiff was aggrieved of rejecting of plaint assailing notice issued by respondent / authorities to conduct audit---Validity---In absence of objection as to the jurisdiction being exercised by the officer concerned who had issued the notices, appellant / plaintiff was required to submit to such notices and contest the same before the hierarchy as provided under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---There was no question of seeking restraining order against such proceedings---As to grant of injunctive relief appellant / plaintiff could not succeed in getting permanent injunction against notices in question---As to injunction application in question, the same was to be dismissed even if plaint could not have been rejected---Appellant / plaintiff in its suit did not plead mala fide against any particular act of respondents / authorities nor any damages for such act of mala fides had been claimed---Time and again, it was stated in the plaint that act of respondents / authorities was mala fide, illegal and without lawful authority---It was not a case of any lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondents / authorities in issuing notices in question---Infact a mere allegation of any act being illegal is not by itself lack of jurisdiction---Cause of action based on which the suit had been filed by appellant / plaintiff was a notice under S. 177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Justifiable reasons were mentioned independently in all such notices for different tax years pointing out various discrepancies and shortcomings in the tax returns of appellant / plaintiff---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order rejecting the plaint under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Sialkot and others v. Messrs Allah Din Steel and Rolling Mills and others 2018 SCMR 1328 and Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2018 SCMR 1444 rel. Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Sialkot and others v. Messrs Allah Din Steel and Rolling Mills and others 2018 SCMR 1328; Messrs Zam Zam LPG (Pvt.) Limited through Attorney v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary/Chairman Revenue Division and 3 others 2023 PTD 649; Atlas Honda Ltd. through Authorized Attorney v. Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 3 others 2022 PTD 866; Fairdeal Exchange Company (Private) Limited through Director of Company v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 3 others 2023 PTD 919; Rashid Ahmad and others v. Nazar Hussain and others 2022 SCMR 1842; Abbasia Cooperative Bank (Now Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd.) through Manager and another v. Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Ghaus and 5 others PLD 1997 SC 3; Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2018 SCMR 1444; Sophia Com. B.V. through Duly Authorized Officer v. Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 2 others 2018 PTD 2208; Messrs Pfizer Pakistan Limited v. Deputy Commissioner and others 2016 PTD 1429; Mujahid Oil Refinery (Pvt.) Limited v. Director I&I Inland Revenue and others 2015 PTD 2572; Dr. Seema Irfan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 Sindh 516; Raja Ali Shan v. Essem Hotel Limited 2007 SCMR 741; Haji Abdul Karim v. Florida Builders (Pvt.) Limited PLD 2012 SC 247; Abdul Rauf and others v. Abdul Hamid Khan and others PLD 1965 SC 671; Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi PLD 1965 SC 698; Mansab Ali v. Amir and 3 others PLD 1971 SC 124; Messrs K.G. Traders and another v. Deputy Collector of Customs and 4 others PLD 1997 Kar. 541; Messrs Falaknaz Builders v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others 2001 YLR 2542; Messrs Saleem Impex v. Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 other 1999 MLD 1728; Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others v. Messrs Saleem Impex through Proprietor Muhammad Saleem Qureshi Hyderabad 1999 YLR 190; Messrs Saman Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse Proprietorship Concern v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 3 others 2003 PTD 409; Federation of Pakistan and others v. Messrs Saman Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse 2004 PTD 1189; Messrs World Trade Corporation v. C.B.R. and others 1999 PTD 2341; Messrs Chemitex Industries Ltd. v. Superintendent of Sales Tax and 3 others 1999 PTD 1184; Arif Majeed Malik and others v. Board of Governors Karachi, Grammer School 2004 CLC 1029; Collectorate of Central Excise, Karachi and another v. Syed Muzakkar Hussain and another 2006 PTD 219; Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan through the Deputy Commissioner Khairpur and another PLD 1970 SC 180; Hamid Husain v. Government of West Pakistan and others 1974 SCMR 356; Mst Qadri Begum v Province of Sindh 1999 CLC 2023; Pir Sabir Shah v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1994 SC 738; Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmad Khan PLD 1974 SC 151; Pfizer Pakistan Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner and others 2016 PTD 1429 and Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2016 PTD 1484 ref. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 177 & 227---Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---Fiscal matters---Original civil jurisdiction of High Court---Audit notice---Scope---Single Judge of High Court is not required to mandatorily exercise such jurisdiction in fiscal matters on Original Side in terms of S. 9, C.P.C. read with S.7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962---When matter is of exercising discretion by Court, then the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is otherwise lawful to do so---Even otherwise, if at all a suit is maintainable, even then a direct challenge to audit notice without availing remedy under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 has been deprecated by the Courts---High Court is not required to decide such controversy which apparently relates to an issue which at best can only be decided by the forum provided under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Abid S. Zuberi for Appellant. Ameer Baksh Metlo along with Ms. Zakia Khan for Respondent No.2. Dates of hearing: 4th and 11th November, 2024.

Summary: (b) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (XVII of 2023)--- ----S. 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 191A---Judicial and administrative orders---Scope---No administrative authority, including Committees constituted under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution, can by administrative order, undo the effect of a judicial order. (c) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (XVII of 2023)--- ----S. 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 191A & 204---Contempt proceedings---Non-fixation of case---Executive and judicial order---Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against contemner/ officer of Supreme Court office who fixed case in question before Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court on the basis of order passed by Committee of Supreme Court constituted under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023---Validity---Contemner/ officer of Supreme Court office did not deliberately avoid fixation of cases before the Bench as directed in the Court order---There was no evidence to suggest that contemner/officer of Supreme Court office had any personal interest in the matter or had connived with any of the parties to the case nor did he act with intention of causing damage to any of the parties to the case---There was no indication of mala fide intent in the actions of contemner/officer of Supreme Court office---In absence of any such factors or elements of contumacy, conduct of contemner/officer of Supreme Court office could not be considered contumacious nor it suffered from mala fides requiring contempt proceedings against him---Supreme Court withdrew show cause notice issued against contemner/officer of Supreme Court office---Contempt proceedings were withdrawn. In attendance: Mansoor Usman Awan, AGP. Hamid Khan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, Amicus curiae. Munir A. Malik, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, Amicus Curiae (Through Video Link from Karachi) Kh. Haris Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court - Amicus curiae. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Advocate Supreme Court, Amicus curiae Salahuddin Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court, Shahid Jamil, Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Counsel for Respondents (in CPLA 836-K of 2020, etc.) Nazar Abbas, Addl. Reg. (J), SCP. (The respondent/accused in person) Dates of hearing: 21st, 22nd and 23rd January, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Section 126A as well as section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 were found having retrospective effect t to the extent as expressly provided in the amended sections of law. (b) Where legislature gives retrospective effect to provisions of an amending act by express words or necessary intendment then the principle enshrined in section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply and express intention of the legislature in new enactment has to be given effect.

Summary: Plaint cannot be verified by a counsel alone in cases of suits filed by corporation but such a defect may subsequently be allowed to be remedied.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)----Murder----Benefit of doubt----Scope----Conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence requires a continuous chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime----Any missing link in the chain entitles the accused to acquittal----Delay of four days in lodging FIR, absence of direct evidence, and contradictions in prosecution witnesses created serious doubts in the case----Supreme Court held that if there exists a single reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. Cited Cases: • Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia 1992 SCMR 1047 • Sarfraz Khan v. The State 1996 SCMR 188 • Asadullah v. The State PLJ 1999 SC 1018 • Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain 2008 SCMR 1103 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 382-B----Benefit of doubt----Scope----In cases where the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused----Supreme Court reiterated that any break in circumstantial evidence weakens the prosecution’s case and necessitates acquittal. Cited Cases: • Liaquat Ali v. The State 2008 SCMR 95 • Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315 • Zafar v. The State 2018 SCMR 326 (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----Judicial confession----Exculpatory statement----Scope----Judicial confession of co-accused was exculpatory and could not be used against the petitioner----Supreme Court held that a confession that shifts blame entirely to another accused cannot be used as evidence against that person unless corroborated by independent, reliable evidence----Since no corroboration was available, the confession was not admissible as evidence against the petitioner. Cited Cases: • Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique 1994 SCMR 1248 • Hassan Akhtar v. Azhar Hameed PLD 2010 SC 657 (d) Criminal trial----Delayed FIR----Evidentiary value----Scope ----FIR was lodged with a delay of four days without a reasonable explanation----Prosecution introduced a motive after six days from the occurrence, which was not initially mentioned in the FIR----Supreme Court found that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s version, rendering it unreliable. (e) Criminal trial----Absence of forensic evidence----Scope ----Alleged murder weapon (rope) was recovered from an open space accessible to the public, making its evidentiary value questionable----No forensic analysis was conducted to establish any link between the weapon and the crime----Forensic Science Agency report did not support the prosecution’s claim that the deceased was drugged prior to the murder----Absence of forensic corroboration created doubt in the prosecution’s case. (f) Criminal trial----Conduct of witnesses----Reliability ----Conduct of key prosecution witness (daughter of the deceased) was found unnatural, as she remained silent despite allegedly witnessing the accused entering the victim’s room----No hue and cry was raised despite the presence of other family members in the house----Supreme Court held that unnatural conduct of a witness raises suspicion about the credibility of their testimony. Cited Cases: • Liaquat Ali v. The State 2008 SCMR 95 • Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315 Disposition: Petition converted into an appeal and allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Petitioner acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ----S. 13----Eviction petition----Landlord-tenant relationship----Scope----Respondents filed an eviction petition under S. 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, claiming the petitioner was their tenant and had defaulted in rent payments since February 2010----Petitioner denied the tenancy relationship, claiming ownership of the property through a sale agreement----Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition; however, the Appellate Court reversed the decision and ordered eviction----High Court upheld the appellate order, holding that the tenancy relationship was established through rent receipts and the rent agreement. Cited Cases: • Tassaduq Hussain v. Mst. Muneer Fatima 2014 SCMR 1744 • Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad v. Nasar-ud-Din 2009 PLD 453 (b) Civil Procedure----Ownership claims by tenant----Jurisdiction----Scope ----Tenant disputing ownership of the landlord must seek remedy through a civil suit----Petitioner’s claim of ownership based on a sale agreement was not proved, as marginal witnesses were not produced, nor was any revenue official examined----Mutation documents were unexhibited and unverified----Utility bills in the name of the petitioner did not confer ownership but only indicated possession----Supreme Court affirmed that ownership disputes must be adjudicated by a Civil Court and cannot be used as a defense in eviction proceedings. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----Burden of proof----Tenant’s claim of ownership----Scope----Petitioner failed to produce credible evidence supporting ownership claim----Rent deed and receipts produced by respondents were found to be cogent evidence proving tenancy relationship----Supreme Court held that in absence of proof of ownership, the petitioner’s status remained that of a tenant. (d) Civil Procedure----Eviction proceedings----Effect of pending civil suit----Scope ----Eviction proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance are independent of any ownership claim under civil law----Petitioner was directed to vacate the premises based on tenancy evidence, while retaining the right to pursue a separate civil suit for ownership if so advised. Disposition: Petition dismissed. Appellate Court and High Court orders upheld. Petitioner directed to vacate the premises. Any ownership claim to be adjudicated separately in a Civil Court.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 191A, 175, 184(3), & salient features of the Constitution---Independence of judiciary and separation of powers---Challenge to the constitutionality of Article 191A added through the 26th Constitutional Amendment---Maintainability---Petitioners objected to the jurisdiction of the regular bench of the Supreme Court to hear cases involving the constitutionality of subsection (2) of Section 221-A of the Customs Act, 1969, based on Article 191A---Respondents argued that Article 191A infringes upon the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, key constitutional principles protected as salient features of the Constitution---Held, a constitutionally invalid amendment cannot override a valid conferment of jurisdiction on the regular bench---The objection regarding jurisdiction and the constitutional validity of Article 191A must be addressed before proceeding further in the matter. (b) Jurisdiction---Power to decide own jurisdiction: ----Principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz---Scope---Respondents contended that the regular bench of the Supreme Court, being the forum in question, has the authority to determine the validity of its jurisdiction, including constitutional challenges to amendments impacting such jurisdiction---Cited principles from Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan (PLD 1995 SC 66), Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Abdul Haque (PLD 1963 SC 486), and Marbury v. Madison (5 US 137 [1803]) to support the bench's competence to decide on its own jurisdiction. ----Cited Cases: • Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan (PLD 1995 SC 66) • Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Abdul Haque (PLD 1963 SC 486) • Marbury v. Madison (5 US 137 [1803]) ----Disposition: Hearing adjourned to 16.01.2025 to allow parties to prepare and assist the Court on the objections regarding jurisdiction and the constitutional validity of Article 191A.