Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 5 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Court) Ordinance, 1984, alleging that after his father's death, a substantial sum (approximately Rs. 44.2 million) was illegally withdrawn from his father's bank accounts. The petitioner sought a comparison of the signatures on the cheques with his father's known signatures, as he claimed his father was bedridden and physically unable to sign the cheques. The Special Court dismissed the application for signature comparison, leading the petitioner to file this revision petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the refusal to compare the signatures of the deceased with the disputed cheques was justified. 2- Whether the comparison of signatures was essential for a just decision in the case. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Refusal to Compare Signatures: The court held that the comparison of signatures was necessary, as the entire dispute centered on whether the signatures on the cheques were forged. The court emphasized that the justice system is inquisitorial, not adversarial, and courts must ensure a just decision by obtaining all relevant evidence, even if it fills a gap in the case. Necessity of Signature Comparison: The court ruled that comparing the signatures was essential to determining the validity of the withdrawals. The court emphasized that Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, gives the judge the power to ask any questions or order the production of documents to obtain proper proof. Therefore, the court directed that the signatures be compared by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The revision petition was accepted, and the lower court's decision was set aside. The application for signature comparison was allowed. -----Citations/Precedents: Abdul Latif Aasi vs. The State (2001 P.Cr.R 548) Muhammad Azam vs. Muhammad Iqbal and others (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 95) The State vs. Muhammad Yaqoob and others (2001 SCMR 308)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging the Rent Tribunal Faisalabad's order dated 12.11.2022, which had dismissed his application to set aside ex-parte proceedings and leave to contest an eviction petition filed by respondent No.1. The petitioner argued that he was not properly served notice in accordance with Section 21 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, and that the Rent Tribunal's proceedings against him were unjust. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was properly served in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. 2- Whether the Rent Tribunal could proceed ex-parte without satisfying the necessary procedural requirements. 3- Whether the denial of the petitioner's application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings violated his right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Improper Service: The court found that the Rent Tribunal had not followed the mandatory requirements of serving the petitioner through all the modes of service, including courier, as required under Section 21 of the Act. There was no evidence that copies of the application and attached documents were served to the petitioner, nor was there sufficient proof that the acknowledgment due had been received back. Fair Trial Violation: The court highlighted that the petitioner's right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution was violated because the Rent Tribunal failed to ensure proper service before proceeding ex-parte. The principle of a fair trial must be upheld, particularly in cases where procedural requirements are critical to ensuring justice. The writ petition was allowed. The court set aside the Rent Tribunal's order dated 12.11.2022 and restored the petitioner's application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings. The petitioner's application for leave to contest the eviction petition was deemed to be pending for further decision by the Rent Tribunal. -----Citations/Precedents: Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600) Mst. Bibi Fatima v. Muhammad Sarwar (2022 SCMR 870)

Summary: In order to amend, consolidate and unify laws relating to the conduct of elections and matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto, the "Act, 2017" was promulgated by the Majlis-e- Shoora (Parliament) with the assent of the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on 2nd October, 2017. Chapter IX lays down a procedure for the settlement of election disputes. In terms of section 139 of the "Act, 2017" no election shall be called in question except by an election petition filed by a candidate for that election. For the trial of election petitions under the "Act, 2017", the Election Commission of Pakistan constituted under Article 218 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, appointed as many Election Tribunals as may be necessary for swift disposal of election petitions. Needless to observe that this petition is before this Tribunal in pursuance thereof. Election petition is to be presented in a manner provided under section 142 of the "Act, 2017" and Section 144 lays down necessary pre-conditions for the election petition. Sub-section (4) of section 144 of the Act ibid ordains that an election petition and its annexures shall be signed by the petitioner and the petition shall be verified in the manner laid down in the "C.P.C." for the verification of pleadings. Section 145 of the "Act, 2017" prescribes a procedure before the Election Tribunal. Sub-section (1) of section 145 of the "Act, 2017" contemplates that if any provision of sections 142, 143 or 144 has not been complied with, the Election Tribunal shall summarily reject the election petition. It would not be out of context to mention here that the Tribunal when once reaches at the conclusion that petition is not proceedable it cannot wait till the culmination of the proceedings through regular trial. The mandate of law is to nip the evil in the bud. The "C.P.C." also bestows power upon the Civil Court to reject the plaint summarily in terms of Order VII Rule 11, if it suffers with the flaws mentioned in the said provision. The Tribunal, thus, can proceed on the same paramateria and to reject the election petition at any stage. The Tribunal is even vested with the power to adopt any other procedure for the expeditious disposal depending upon the circumstances of the case. The provisions of the "Act, 2017" are unequivocal and clear to this extent that a petitioner while presenting the election petition, is obliged to adhere the mandate of sections 142, 143 and 144 of the "Act, 2017". Non-compliance of any of the said provisions renders automatic rejection of the election petition. Reliance in in this respect can be placed on Lt. Col. (Rtd.) GHAZANFAR ABBAS SHAH versus Mehr KHALID MEHMOOD SARGANA and others (2015 SCMR 1585) and Engr. IQBAL ZAFAR JHARGA and others versus KHALILUR REHMAN and 4 others (2000 SCMR 250). The pivotal and frizzy question thus arises for the determination of this Court is as to {whether "Oath Commissioner" and "Notary Public" is the same thing for the purposes of Section 144 of the "Act, 2017"}. A Notary is to be appointed under the Notaries Ordinance (XIX of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance, 1961"). Power to appoint Notary vests in the Provincial Government.

Summary: In view of the above, the role of applicants with regard to commission of alleged offence requires further enquiry as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr. P.C. We; therefore, admit the applicants to bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) each and P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Summary: Scope of Referee Judge in Cr. Appeals. Death in police custody. Appraisal of evidence should not be unrealistic. Applicability of section 302(c) PPC.

Summary: In view of the above, the applicant / accused has made out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 18.03.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. It is clarified that the observations made herein are tentative in nature which shall not prejudice the case of either party nor shall they influence the learned trial Court in any manner in deciding the case strictly on merits in accordance with law. This bail application is allowed in the above terms.

Summary: Service ------- (change in date of birth)-----The case of Rana Muhammad Rasheed pertains to a petition challenging a judgment from the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which rejected his grievance application seeking a correction in his date of birth. Rana Muhammad Rasheed, a Tonnage Supervisor, had served with the Karachi Dock Labour Board since 1974. He sought to change his recorded date of birth from 20th October 1952 to 20th October 1954, citing a correction made by the educational board. The petitioner's case hinged on the argument that his date of birth was erroneously recorded in his service record, and he pursued legal remedies to rectify this discrepancy. He initially filed a civil suit, which resulted in a decree in his favor. However, this judgment was later overturned by the district judge. The court relied on established legal principles, including Civil Service Regulation No. 171, which stipulates the procedure for correcting dates of birth for government employees. It emphasized that such corrections should ideally be pursued within a specific timeframe after joining service, a principle reiterated in previous Supreme Court rulings. In light of these precedents and regulations, the court dismissed the petitioner's claim, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures and timelines for amendments to service records.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged an order by the Senior Civil Judge (Family Division), Khanewal, which dismissed her application to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree concerning the custody of a minor. The petitioner argued that the ex-parte decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation as the respondent had filed a second application for custody without disclosing the earlier one and misrepresented the petitioner’s address. The petitioner claimed that she was never personally served and had no knowledge of the proceedings. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ex-parte judgment and decree were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of facts. 2- Whether the petitioner was properly served in accordance with the law before the ex-parte decree was passed. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petitioner’s application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The court held that without proper service of summons and an adequate opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, the ex-parte decree could not stand. The process server was not produced to establish personal service, and the court had incorrectly presumed service based on postal receipts and newspaper publication. Given these procedural flaws, the ex-parte judgment and decree were set aside, and the case was transferred to a family court in the petitioner’s home district for fresh adjudication on merit, focusing on the welfare of the minor. ----Citations/Precedents Sardar Hussain v. Mst. Parveen Umer (PLD 2004 SC 357) Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad (2004 SCMR 821) Mirajam Aberras Lehdeaho v. SHO, Police Station Chung (2018 SCMR 427) Yaqoob Ali through LRs v. Muhammad Ayub (PLD 2021 Lahore 678) Ahmed Khan v. Haji Muhammad Qassim (2002 SCMR 664) Mehr Din through Legal Heirs v. Azizan (1994 SCMR 1110) Pehalwan Khan v. Mrs. Najma Mujtaba (1986 CLC 1735) Muhammad Asghar v. Qamar Din (PLD 2005 Lahore 240)

Summary: An order/judgment passed by the first appellate Court under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 would be challenged through Civil Revision under Section 115 C.P.C.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, who held positions as Additional Advocates General and Assistant Advocates General, challenged an order issued by the caretaker Government of Punjab, which dispensed with their services. The petitioners argued that the caretaker government, under the Election Act, 2017, has limited authority to perform only day-to-day functions and cannot make permanent changes, such as their dismissal. They further argued that the Chief Minister lacked the authority to issue the order without the approval of a Cabinet, which had not yet been formed. -----Issues: 1- Whether the caretaker government has the authority under Section 230 of the Election Act, 2017, to dismiss the petitioners from their positions. 2- Whether the Chief Minister can act alone in the absence of a Cabinet to remove law officers. 3- Whether the removal of the petitioners on the grounds of political affiliation is valid in the context of ensuring free and fair elections. 4- Whether the appointments of law officers are political in nature and whether their dismissal for the purpose of facilitating elections is justified. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court issued a notice to the respondents and ordered the submission of a report and parawise comments. It suspended the operation of the impugned order only to the extent of the petitioners' dismissal, meaning that the petitioners' removal from office was temporarily halted until the next hearing. The court did not, however, interfere with the fresh appointments of new law officers in the Advocate General’s office. The court raised several questions regarding the interpretation of Section 230 of the Election Act, the authority of the caretaker government, and the role of the Chief Minister in making such decisions without a Cabinet. These issues were to be further examined in subsequent proceedings. -----Citations/Precedents: Raja Muhammad Zubair and others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (PLD 2022 Peshawar 100) Government of Balochistan through Secretary Services and General Administration Department and others v. Abdul Rauf and others (PLD 2021 SC 313) Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1205) Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 808) Imtiaz Ahmad Kaifi v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2013 Lahore 598) Agriculture Workers' Union, Balochistan, Quetta and others v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Balochistan, Quetta and others (1997 SCMR 66)