Summary: (a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 188 & 214---Powers-of-Attorney Act (VII of 1882), S. 2---Principal-agent relationship---General power of attorney---Transfer of property by the attorney in favour of his sons---Holder of a general power of attorney must obtain special permission from the principal when alienating the principal's property, either in his own favor or in the name of his relatives---Attorney would require prior permission, approval and consent of the principal when he wants to transfer the property in the name of his close relatives. Maqsood Ahmad and others v. Salman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31 and Jamil Akhtar and others v. Las Baba and others PLD 2003 SC 494 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 185---Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of Courts below---Normally, the Supreme Court does not interfere in the concurrent findings (of Courts below) unless those are perverse, arbitrary, fanciful or capricious. [p. 66] C Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1-2. Hafiz Zaheer Iqbal, Advocate High Court (with permission) for Respondents Nos.3-5. Date of hearing: 11th September, 2024.

Summary: (a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 188 & 214---Powers-of-Attorney Act (VII of 1882), S. 2---Principal-agent relationship---General power of attorney---Transfer of property by the attorney in favour of his sons---Holder of a general power of attorney must obtain special permission from the principal when alienating the principal's property, either in his own favor or in the name of his relatives---Attorney would require prior permission, approval and consent of the principal when he wants to transfer the property in the name of his close relatives. Maqsood Ahmad and others v. Salman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31 and Jamil Akhtar and others v. Las Baba and others PLD 2003 SC 494 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 185---Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of Courts below---Normally, the Supreme Court does not interfere in the concurrent findings (of Courts below) unless those are perverse, arbitrary, fanciful or capricious. [p. 66] C Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1-2. Hafiz Zaheer Iqbal, Advocate High Court (with permission) for Respondents Nos.3-5. Date of hearing: 11th September, 2024.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.70 & 103---Suit for declaration with permanent injunction---Counter claim of execution of sale deed---Existence of written agreement between the parties---Tendency of executing party to vary the terms of the agreement through oral statements---Admission as to execution of agreement in evidence---Suit was dismissed, however, upon appeal preferred by the petitioner appellate court while dismissing the appeal passed a decree for specific performance of the contract---Validity---Petitioner himself admitted receiving of token money from respondent's father-in-law and his signature upon receipt slip stated that he received the amount as token money for land---Signature and thumb impression of petitioner were also available on the back of stamp paper, which explicitly stated that suit property had been sold to respondent for consideration vide Iqrarnama/sale deed---Petitioner while appearing as P.W acknowledged during the course of cross-examination that he purchased the stamp paper from the Stamp Vendor and also confirmed his signature in the register of that Stamp Vendor---As per report of Local Commission, respondent was in possession of the land in question and this fact was also conceded by other prosecution witness---Such evidence provided a basis for the lower appellate court to pass a decree of specific performance of contract in respondent's favour, which decision was based on correct appreciation of evidence---Oral evidence could not outweigh the documentary evidence and once an agreement has been reduced in writing, oral evidence is to be excluded while proving the terms thereof as against the terms specifically reduced in writing---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art.70---Oral evidence cannot outweigh documentary evidence---Documentary evidence, which is not objected to at relevant time, would prevail against oral evidence, regardless of how abundant the latter may be---Oral evidence cannot substitute documentary evidence. Abdul Ghani and others v. Mst. Yasmeen Khan and others 2011 SCMR 837; Shamshad v. Arif Ashraf Khan and others 2010 SCMR 473 and Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others 2016 SCMR 274 rel. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art.103---Exclusion of oral statement made between the parties to any instrument or their representatives---Rationale behind Art.103 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is that inferior evidence should be excluded in the presence of superior evidence; that a written agreement reflects a deliberate and well considered settlement---Party acknowledging a fact in writing is immune from mischief, failure and lapse of memory---Once an agreement has been reduced in writing, oral evidence is to be excluded while proving the terms thereof as against the terms specifically reduced in writing. Bolan Beverages (Pvt.) Limited v. PEPSO Co. Inc. and 4 others PLD 2004 SC 860 and Elahi Bakhsh through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad Iqbal and another 2014 SCMR 1217 rel. Muhammad Kashif and Malik Shamsul Haq for Petitioner. Nasir Iqbal for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th September, 2024. Judgment Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J .--- Through instant revision petition, petitioner has assailed the vires of judgments and decrees dated 03.04.2014 and 18.02.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Jand (Attock), respectively, whereby petitioner's suit for declaration along with permanent and mandatory injunction, was concurrently dismissed, however Trial Court findings to the extent of decree qua specific performance of contract passed in favour of respondent, were set aside by the Appellate Court. 2. Facts in brief are that petitioner instituted a suit for declaration along with permanent and mandatory injunction to the effect that he is owner-in-possession of suit property measuring 02-Kanal 03-Marla, situated in Khasra No.457, Mauza Basal, Tehsil Jand, District Attock and respondent has no concern whatsoever with the suit property and if respondent has managed / maneuvered any sale deed / agreement, same being against the law and facts, is inoperative qua rights of petitioner and liable to be set aside. The suit was contested by respondent by way of filing written statement. Learned Trial Court, after framing issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments of both sides, proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree dated 03.04.2014 and at the same time, passed decree for specific performance of contract in favour of respondent. Feeling discontent, petitioner filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge, who vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2015 partly accepted the same, set aside the findings of Trial Court to the extent of decree qua specific performance of contract and upheld Trial Court's decision qua dismissal of petitioner's suit. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that document Exh.D1 is in fact a loan receipt and not an agreement to sell. He further submits that the Courts below have misconstrued the evidence brought on record by the respondent in the shape of Exh.D1 and Exh.D2 as the agreement between the parties was that of a loan as assurance from the petitioner towards the respondent, not for sale, thus, impugned judgments and decrees are unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent defends the impugned judgments and decrees. 5. Arguments heard. Available record perused. 6. It is the stance of petitioner that due to a friendly relationship between the parties, he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent, who in exchange thereof, obtained petitioner's signatures on stamp paper for the return of aforesaid amount, however, since petitioner is illiterate, he was unable to understand the contents of the stamp paper, which was subsequently transformed into a sale agreement. The petitioner asserts that this document is false, fabricated and concocted. 7. It is apparent from bare perusal of record that petitioner himself admitted to receiving Rs.10,000/- from respondent's father-in-law, namely Haji Abdur Raheem and his signature upon receipt slip Exh.D1, which states that on 07.10.2000, he received Rs.10,000/- as token money for land. For convenience, the contents of receipt Exh.D1 are reproduced hereunder:- Similarly, signature and thumb impression of petitioner are also available on the back of stamp paper (Exh.D2), which explicitly states that suit property has been sold to respondent for Rs.1,10,000/- vide Iqrarnama / sale deed. During his testimony as PW-1, petitioner acknowledged during the course of cross-examination that he purchased the stamp paper from Muhammad Ramzan, the Stamp Vendor. He also confirmed his signature in the register of Muhammad Ramzan. For facility of reference, relevant portion of petitioner's cross-examination is reproduced hereunder:- 8. Receiving of payment and affixing signature on disputed, stamp paper (Exh.D2) are admitted by the petitioner himself. It is also a matter of record that according to report of Local Commission (Exh.D4), respondent was in possession of the land in question - a fact conceded by PW-2 Adeel Akhtar. This evidence provided a basis for learned lower Appellate Court to set aside decree of specific performance of contract in respondent's favour, and appellate decision is thus based upon correct appreciation of evidence brought on record and applicable law. 9. Needless to observe that oral evidence cannot outweigh the documentary evidence. The documentary evidence, which was not objected to at relevant time, would prevail against oral evidence, regardless of how abundant the latter may be. Moreover, it is firmly established that oral evidence cannot substitute for documentary evidence. The Supreme Court, in Abdul Ghani and others v. Mst. Yasmeen Khan and others (2011 SCMR 837), underscored that mere oral assertions are insufficient to rebut documentary evidence, which holds greater weight and credibility. This principle is further reinforced by the ruling in Shamshad v. Arif Ashraf Khan and others (2010 SCMR 473), where the court lamented that the lower courts failed to recognize the precedence of documentary evidence over oral testimony. In determining the rights of the parties, it is the quality nor the quantity, of the evidence that should be prioritized. When documentary evidence contradicts the oral testimony, the latter cannot be relied upon. It is a well-established rule of appreciation of evidence that a person may lie, documents do not. Reliance is placed upon Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR 274). 10. Article 103 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 excluded oral statement made between the parties to any instrument or their representatives. The rationale behind this provision is that inferior evidence should be excluded in the presence of superior evidence; that a written agreement reflects a deliberate and well considered settlement. Furthermore, a party acknowledging a fact in writing is immune from mischief, failure and lapse of memory. Once an agreement has been reduced in writing, oral evidence is to be excluded while proving the terms thereof as against the terms specifically reduced in writing. Reference is made to Mst. Baswar Sultan v. Mst. Adeeba Alvi (2002 SCMR 326), Bolan Beverages (Pvt.) Limited v. PEPSO Co. Inc. and 4 others (PLD 2004 SC 860) and Elahi Bakhsh through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad lqbal and another (2014 SCMR 1217). 11. Petitioner could not prove his case through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence, as rightly observed by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any llegality, material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence and jurisdictional error in the concurrent decisions of learned Courts below qua declaratory decree, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 12. Resultantly, this revision petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. SA/M-99/L Revision dismissed.

Summary: Companies Act (XIX of 2017)--- ----S. 221---Inspecting affairs of company---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Commission), jurisdiction of---Petitioner company assailed order appointing inspectors to inspect books of accounts, books and papers of petitioner company in all respects and to furnish report---Plea raised by petitioner company was that exercise of powers under S. 221(1) of Companies Act, 2017, could not be extended---Validity---Commission issued show-cause notice followed by order under S. 221 of Companies Act, 2017, followed by letter of inspectors so appointed seeking certain information, after realizing its frame and under no stretch of imagination it could deemingly be extended to the provision of inspectors having different eventualities to initiate such actions---High Court limited applicability of order in question to the extent of frame provided under S. 221 of Companies Act, 2017---High Court did not curtail rights of SECP insofar as contemplated actions under other provisions of Companies Act, 2017, if the situation would demand---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. [pp. 88, 89] A & B Saif Power Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2023 CLD 466 rel. Abdul Ahad Nadeem for Petitioner. Arshad Tayebally along with Raja Qasit Nawaz Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th September, 2024.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Citizenship ----Right to nationality—Issuance of CNICs—Fundamental rights— Citizenship is a foundational right, enabling individuals to enjoy civil and political protections guaranteed under the Constitution—Arbitrary deprivation of nationality or denial of CNICs contravenes Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other international conventions—State cannot adopt practices that risk statelessness, and must act in accordance with due process and safeguards enshrined in law. (b) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ----S. 47 & NADRA Notification dated 19.04.2017 (as amended 03.01.2018)—Issuance of CNICs—Proof of Pakistani citizenship— Under the notification, NADRA is bound to issue CNICs to applicants who produce pre-1979 verified government documents such as land records, domicile, pedigree tables, or other state-issued certificates—Petitioners established their ancestral ownership through documentary evidence including revenue records and inheritance mutations dating back to 1965-66—Their entitlement to CNICs was fully supported by law. (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 115—Civil revision—Concurrent findings reversed by appellate court—Interference justified— Trial Court decreed suit for issuance of CNICs based on robust oral and documentary evidence—Appellate Court misread evidence and failed to consider applicability of statutory NADRA Notification—High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction to restore trial court’s decree, holding appellate judgment as unsustainable in law. **(d) Evidence—Documentary proof—Pre-1979 land records and pedigree table— Petitioners produced Khewat, Khatooni, Misl-e-Haqiat, mutation entries, and verified pedigree (Shajra-e-Nasab) to show lineage from Pakistani citizens recorded before 1979—Also supported claim through NADRA verification tokens and applications—Held, such evidence fulfilled statutory criteria for CNIC issuance. **(e) Administrative Law—Failure to provide remedy despite direction— Petitioners had earlier been directed to avail NADRA’s internal remedy, which they duly pursued—NADRA failed to act upon their applications despite tokens and supporting documentation—Such conduct amounts to violation of legitimate expectations and necessitated judicial intervention. Disposition: Revision allowed—Judgment of appellate court dated 22.02.2023 set aside—Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 08.11.2022 restored—Petitioners declared bona fide Pakistani citizens entitled to CNICs under NADRA Notification and Section 47 of Ordinance, 2000.

Summary: (a) Arms Ordinance, 1965 ----S. 13(e)—Possession of unlicensed firearm—Recovery on pointation—Proof— Appellant was convicted for possessing a .303 bore rifle without a valid license—Recovery was effected from a room in the appellant’s house based on his disclosure while in custody for another offence—Held, recovery of the rifle was witnessed and testified by two levies officials whose depositions remained unshaken despite detailed cross-examination—Appellant failed to produce a valid arms license—Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed the weapon was in working condition—Prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 103—Recovery on accused’s pointation—Association of private witness—Applicability— Contention regarding non-association of private witness during recovery was found to be without legal force—Held, when recovery is made on pointation of the accused pursuant to a disclosure, non-compliance with S.103, Cr.P.C. is not fatal—Such procedural omission does not vitiate recovery. **(c) Evidence—Prosecution evidence—Appraisal—Credibility of official witnesses— Statements of levies personnel and investigating officer were found consistent, credible, and corroborative—No material contradictions or discrepancies noted—Evidence was sufficient to uphold conviction—Trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence in accordance with law. Disposition: Appeal dismissed—Conviction and sentence of 3 years R.I. and fine under S.13(e), Arms Ordinance, 1965, upheld—No misreading of evidence or legal infirmity found in the trial court’s decision. Cited Law / References: • Arms Ordinance, 1965, S.13(e) • Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Ss. 103, 342, 382-B • FIR No. 25 of 2022, Levies Station Killa Saifullah

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending