Summary: In view of the above, the applicant / accused Malik Amir son of Noor Khan is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and a P.R. bond for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The instant bail application stands disposed of in the above terms

Summary: 1. In ex parte proceedings it is not mandatory to decree the Suit which in all situations has to be decided on the basis of available evidence2. Public Documents are not always admissible in terms of Article 85 of the Qanoon e Shahadat Order 1984; exceptions to be looked into as well3. Mutation entries are not title documents.

Summary: Petitioner seeking relief that her husband was employee of Government of Sindh as Naib qasid died on 11-05-2012 during Service .Petitioner approached to concerned for pension &other benefits but no response and only Gratuity fund RS 38250/received. Respondent for the state appeared and argued that he was appointed on 20-08-1995 and he terminated from his job on 01-11-1995. However, he was reinstated on 21-03-2009,and he died on 11-05-2012 and not completed Service minimum required for pension & others therefore ,he is not entitled to pension. It was held that Rule 275 of Sindh Civil Service Regulations makes clear clear that he is entitled for family pension. He is also fully entitled for family pension and Salary of the intervening Period as provided under the Law rule 152 of Sindh Service rules. Respondent is directed to re calculated the family pension of intervening period and deposit the same in this court. Petition is disposed of with above terms.

Summary: Background: Several constitutional petitions arose from a political event, namely the "Haqeeqi Long March," led by a political leader and party. The march commenced on October 28, 2022, from Lahore with a destination to Islamabad. On November 3, 2022, the march was disrupted by an attack in Wazirabad, resulting in one death and injuries to several individuals, including the party leader. Following the attack, party members held demonstrations and sit-ins, blocking entry and exit points in Rawalpindi, causing severe disruptions to daily life, business, traffic, and public services from November 5 to 11, 2022. These petitions were filed to address the resulting blockades and public inconvenience caused by the sit-ins. -----Issues: 1- Did the civil administration and police authorities fail to discharge their duties in managing the law and order situation during the protests? 2- Were the protests in violation of constitutional rights, specifically in relation to public order, freedom of movement, and the impact on daily life? 3- Were the respondents, including key political figures, responsible for inciting or participating in the unlawful protests? 4- What are the legal duties of the civil and law enforcement authorities under relevant laws in handling such situations? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Civil Administration and Police Failure: The court found that the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Regional Police Officer, and City Police Officer had failed to perform their duties as required by the Punjab Civil Administration Act, 2017, and the Police Order, 2002. Their role during the protests was deemed passive and ineffective, allowing the disruption to continue. Violation of Constitutional Rights: The court emphasized that the right to peaceful assembly under Article 16 of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order. The blockades violated the public’s rights to freedom of movement and disrupted essential services, constituting an unlawful act. Role of Political Figures: While no direct evidence was provided to hold the political leaders legally accountable for inciting the protests, the court noted their failure to publicly condemn the unlawful actions of their supporters. The leaders were expected to demonstrate responsibility but did not take appropriate measures. Legal Responsibilities of Authorities: The court reiterated that the police and civil administration have a duty to maintain public order, safeguard citizens' rights, and prevent disruptions. Their failure in handling the situation amounted to negligence and dereliction of duty. The petitions were disposed of with directions for the civil administration, police, and other relevant authorities to devise a mechanism to prevent such incidents in the future. The court referred the matter to higher authorities for an inquiry into the conduct of the involved officials, with instructions for appropriate disciplinary action. -----Citations/Precedents: Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2011 KLR Supreme Court 298) Suo Motu Case No.7 of 2017 (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 318) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (2009 SCMR 1279) Government of Pakistan v. Zamir Ahmad (PLD 1975 SC 667) Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan through Secretary Law (PLD 2011 SC 365)

Summary: The term "decree" is nowhere defined in the Family Courts Act, 1964. So for this purpose, recourse can be made to section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908), which defines the decree. After having a glimpse of the definition of decree, no doubt left that a decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint the determination of any question within section 144 and an order under rules 60, 98, 99, 101 or 103 of Order XXI but shall not include any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order or any order of dismissal for default. Suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed in terms of section 10 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The decision was compound, which on the one hand dissolved the marriage interse parties and on the other dissolution was made subject to return of dower. Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 provides the manner of enforcement of decrees The manner and form of decree is provided in the West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965. Rules 16 and 17, for the said purpose, are more relevant The above discussion leads to irresistible conclusion that the order dated 8th December, 2010 resulting into dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula subject to return of dower, for all intent and purposes, was a decree under section 13 of the "Act, 1964" and was executable.

Summary: Background: A group of petitioners filed civil revisions challenging the decisions of both the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge, Bhakkar. The dispute involved a large tract of land, measuring 78,000 Kanal, located in Moza Darboola, Bhakkar, which the petitioners claimed as Shamlat Deh (community-owned land). They argued that they and their predecessors had been in possession of this land since 1923-24 and had worked on it by breaking it up and sinking wells. The petitioners contended that under Martial Law Regulation (MLR) No. 64, they, as inferior owners (Adna Malkan), had been declared full owners of the land. The respondents, however, challenged these claims, and an order by the Collector recognizing the petitioners' ownership was overturned by the Commissioner of Sargodha Division. The petitioners appealed to the Board of Revenue, which advised them to seek redress from the civil courts. They then filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, but it was dismissed by the trial court. Their subsequent appeal was also dismissed, leading to these civil revisions. -----Issues: 1- Ownership of the Land: Whether the petitioners, as Adna Malkan (inferior owners), had acquired full ownership of the suit land based on their long-term possession and the provisions of MLR No. 64. 2- Effect of MLR 1964: Whether the rights of inferior ownership were abolished under MLR 1964. 3- Limitation: Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation. 4- Res Judicata: Whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata due to previous litigation between the same parties over the same land. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court dismissed the civil revisions, holding that: The petitioners failed to provide credible evidence to support their claim that they had broken up the land or obtained permission from the superior owners (Aala Malkan). They did not prove the necessary requirements for inferior ownership (Adna Malkiyat), such as offering a share of the produce or obtaining permission to take possession. Under MLR 1964, all intermediary interests, including Aala Malkiat (superior ownership), were abolished without compensation. Therefore, any claim of inferior ownership under previous regulations was no longer valid after the promulgation of MLR 1964. The suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, as a similar case regarding the same land had been previously litigated and decided against the petitioners in 1968. This previous decision had attained finality and could not be reopened through subsequent litigation. The petitioners’ additional claim of ownership based on adverse possession was also rejected, as adverse possession had been declared contrary to Islamic law by the Supreme Court in a landmark ruling. The civil revisions were dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Khanan and 2 others Vs. Fateh Sher through Ahmad and 15 others (1993 SCMR 1578) Ghulam Haider Vs. Ghulam Raza Shah and 12 others (PLD 1979 Lahore 481) Maqbool Ahmed Vs. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 2063) Muhammad Chiragh-ud-Din Bhatti Vs The Province of West Pakistan (1971 SCMR 447) Muhammad Akhtar etc. Vs. Abdul Hadi etc. (1981 SCMR 878) Muhammad Saleem and others Vs. Rashid Ahmed and others (2004 SCMR 1144) Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd. and others Vs. Chairman Area Electricity Board, WAPDA (PESCO), Peshawar and others (PLD 2005 SC 430) SME Bank Limited through President Islamabad and others Vs. Izhar ul Haq (2019 SCMR 939) Chief Commissioner Inland Tax through RTO Zone-I, Federal Board of Revenue, Hyderabad and others Vs. Ghulam Mustafa Mari, Ex-Inspector, Income Tax, Revenue Division, FBR, Hyderabad (2019 SCMR 1657) Muhammad Afzal Khan Vs. Muhammad Aslam (deceased) through LRs. (2022 SCMR 1275)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles, which was decreed ex-parte by the Trial Court on 16.01.2019 due to the absence of the respondent. The respondent later challenged the ex-parte judgment by filing an appeal, which was delayed by 98 days. Despite this delay, the Appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the ex-parte judgment, and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh proceedings. The petitioner contended that the appeal should not have been allowed due to the respondent's prior statement in the Executing Court, where he expressed willingness to return the dowry articles, and because the appeal was time-barred. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Appellate Court’s remand order is legally valid and amenable to constitutional jurisdiction. 2- Whether the respondent’s appeal, which was delayed by 98 days, was maintainable. 3- Whether the respondent’s conduct and prior statements should preclude him from obtaining relief. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court held that the Appellate Court erred in its judgment by failing to address the issue of the delay in filing the appeal and by not considering the respondent's conduct in the Executing Court. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the remand order, and directed the Appellate Court to reconsider the appeal. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation is not a mere technicality and must be applied strictly. Since the respondent’s appeal was time-barred by 98 days, the delay required proper justification, which the Appellate Court failed to consider adequately. The respondent had made a binding statement in the Executing Court on 24.04.2019, agreeing to return the dowry articles. The High Court found that this statement should have been given more weight, especially since the respondent had not fulfilled his commitment and later filed an appeal without disclosing this fact to the Appellate Court. The High Court noted that the conduct of the respondent—evading the return of dowry articles and disappearing during the bailiff’s attempt to enforce the Court’s order—was improper and relevant to the decision. The Court emphasized that it must take into account the conduct of the parties when exercising constitutional jurisdiction. The Court also rejected the respondent's argument that the admission of the appeal automatically settled the limitation issue, finding that the Appellate Court did not properly adjudicate the limitation question. The High Court found that the Appellate Court’s remand order was flawed as it did not address the question of limitation or the respondent’s conduct and statement in the Executing Court. Outcome: The High Court allowed the constitutional petition, set aside the remand order of the Appellate Court, and directed the Appellate Court to reconsider the appeal, specifically addressing the issues of limitation and the respondent's conduct. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Nadira Shahzad v. Mubashir Ahmad and others (1995 SCMR 1419) Fateh Sher v. Sarfraz and others (1986 SCMR 1356) Mst. Salim-un-Nisa and others v. Aziz and another [2009 CLC 860 (Peshawar)] Amir Shahzad v. Additional District Judge, Multan and 2 others [2015 CLC 632 (Lahore)] Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others (PLD 2021 SC 715)

Summary: Penalty of indefinite demotion---The case appears to revolve around the penalty of demotion imposed on the petitioner due to allegations of using abusive language against management at an unauthorized gathering of employees.The court was considering whether the penalty of indefinite demotion to a lower pay scale is permissible under the relevant rules and regulations. The court modifies the penalty by specifying that the demotion will be effective for a specific period of twelve months from the date of the original order. The court directs the NBP to adjust the petitioner's service record accordingly.

Summary: Criminal Appeal (The convictions and sentences Upheld, as misappropriation was committed in the bank and since only the appellants were posted at the relevant time .)

Summary: The applicant claimed to be the owner and landlord of a building and alleged that the decree holder had obtained a money decree against judgment debtors. The execution process involved attaching the goods in the shops and subsequently transferring tenancy rights to the decree holder. The applicant invoked Section 12(2) CPC, arguing that the impugned order was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The decree holder's stance was that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, and the applicant had been properly served with notices throughout the proceedings. The decree holder argued that the order in question was a continuation of a previous order and that the applicant's claims were not maintainable. The court examined the case's details, including the nature of the tenancy rights and goodwill. It noted that the applicant's failure to challenge earlier orders and its absence from the proceedings weakened its argument. The court also highlighted that tenancy rights on goodwill could be transferable under certain circumstances and that the applicant had not raised objections based on the type of tenancy or other relevant aspects. Ultimately, the court dismissed the applicant's application under Section 12(2) CPC, stating that no fraud or misrepresentation had occurred, and that the applicant's claims were misconceived. The court emphasized that the applicant's actions appeared to be an attempt to disrupt the execution process and upheld the validity of the impugned order.