Summary: Section 3 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972----Article 23 & 227 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ----- Customary Laws ---- Section 2 of The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 & The West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 as well as Section 2(b) of The West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 (As amended by Ordi. XIII of 1983) ---- Section 6, 12 & 14 of Pakistan (Protection of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1948---- Section 7 & 34 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance (XV of 1949). Land / Property sold by the Muslim owner to non-Muslim after receipt of full consideration that transaction is a complete sale & the sold property for all legal intends and purposes went into the absolute ownership of the vendees. After migration of that minority to India their abandoned land become part of the settlement pool property ---- Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter relating to the evacuee property.

Summary: It is an established Rule that pleadings themselves cannot be considered as evidence unless the Plaintiff or Defendant, as the case may be, enters the witness Box and lead the evidence in support of one's claim or defence. Plaintiff has not come forward to testify and discharge the burden of proof about its claim. The reported decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court handed down in the case of Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer Khan-2015 SCMR page-1401, is relevant. Since Plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations against the Defendants, thus the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Suit dismissed.

Summary: Maintainibility----Additional Registrar OR office staff cannot be directed not to accept any petitions / cases as they are not authorized to decide its maintainability under the applicable Appellate Side Rules of the Court.

Summary: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (FRA Remanding Order Set aside and declared null & void. )---Hence the only presumption, deducible in absence of any contrary evidence is that it was executed and authenticated in presence of Notary Public who is one of the authority to authenticate the subject document i.e. Power of Attorney.--

Summary: [Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (Section 31 (7) In light of the foregoing, we reach to an irresistible conclusion that the exercise of passing monthly FCA on to the petitioners on the basis of NEPRAs determination dated 27.12.2019 is in accordance with law and the timeline provided under Section 31(7) of the Act, 1997 be adhered to, unless any party is restricted for a reason beyond its control, which is a case at hand. The Petitioners clearly failed to avail statutory remedies under the law while the impugned determination was being made and even thereafter, nonetheless there is no cavil that the petitioners owe FCA component to K-Electric and liable to satisfy this debt. These instant Petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.

Summary: Suit for recovery of damages under Section 4 & 9 of the Defamation Ordinance --- Under Rule 8, 9 & 21 of Order XI CPC. it is imperative for the defendant to file answer to the interrogatories within seven days or the time as specified by the Court --- and in failure whereof, the adjudicating Court is well within jurisdiction to strike out the right of defence of the defaulting party.

Summary: Amendments to pleadings ---- Amendments can be allowed at any stage include revision or appellate stage if it is in the interest of justice. --- Issues:Whether the Appellate Court erred in allowing the production of additional evidence by the Respondents while denying the Petitioner's request for a corresponding amendment in the plaint.---Holding:The petition was allowed. The order of the Appellate Court dismissing the Petitioner's application for amendment in the plaint was set aside, and the application was accepted. Consequently, the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision.---Reasoning:The Court noted that the main controversy was the distribution of Elahi Bakhsh's estate among his legal heirs. It held that the proposed amendment would not alter the nature or the relief sought in the suit. The Court emphasized that amendments should be allowed in the interest of justice to ensure the real questions in controversy are determined. The Court found that the Appellate Court had not provided valid lawful reasons for rejecting the Petitioner's request for amendment, especially since the necessity for the amendment arose only after the acceptance of additional evidence by the Respondents.---Order:The Trial Court was directed to decide the suit afresh, allowing both parties to make necessary amendments in their pleadings and produce evidence. The fresh decision was to be made within three months from the receipt of the judgment copy.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, working as an Assistant Professor in BPS-19 at a university, challenged an advertisement published on 10.01.2021 by the university for the appointment of an Associate Professor in BPS-20. The petitioner argued that the criteria for the post set by the university did not align with the Higher Education Commission's (HEC) prescribed qualifications. The petitioner sought directions to allow her application for the position and to be considered for the appointment process based on the HEC's criteria. -----Issues: 1- Whether the university's advertisement, setting higher qualification requirements than those prescribed by HEC, is valid? -----2- Whether the petition can be entertained despite a significant delay of 22 months in filing the challenge? -----3- Can the recruitment process be halted at this stage based on the petitioner's claim? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition on the grounds of laches (delay) and acquiescence by the petitioner. University's Authority: The court held that HEC provides minimum guidelines, but universities are allowed to set higher qualifications for appointments. Therefore, the university's criteria for the Associate Professor position were not automatically invalid. Delay in Filing: The petitioner filed the petition 22 months after the advertisement’s publication and the closing date for applications, without providing any valid reason for the delay. The court cited the legal maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus acquitas subvenit," which means equity helps the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. Impact on Recruitment Process: Stopping the recruitment process at this advanced stage would cause injustice to candidates who applied within the prescribed time frame. The petition was dismissed due to the delay (laches) and the petitioner’s conduct, which barred her from challenging the process at this stage. ------Citations/Precedents: Masooda Begum through Legal Heirs vs. Government of Punjab (PLD 2003 SC 90): The Supreme Court held that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of laches even if the underlying order is void. Zaheer Ahmad Chaudhry & others vs. City District Government Karachi (NLR 2007 Civil 129): The principle that a writ may be refused on grounds of laches was reiterated. Abdul Rehman Janjua vs. Punjab Bar Council (PLD 1983 Lah 47): Writ petitions can be refused even against void orders if the petitioner is guilty of laches. Syed Asif Majeed vs. A.D.C.(C)/ASC(L) (2000 SCMR 998): The court upheld the dismissal of a petition due to laches where the petition was filed decades after the impugned order. Mirza Maqbool Elahi vs. Capital Development Authority (1998 SCMR 1074): The Supreme Court reaffirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is an equitable jurisdiction and petitions may be dismissed due to laches and acquiescence. Soofi Muhammad Din vs. Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner (1991 SCMR 905): The court dismissed a petition on the grounds of laches where the delay in challenging the order was substantial. M.H. Abidi vs. State Life Insurance Corporation (1990 MLD 563 Karachi): The court held that in the absence of a limitation bar, the remedy must still be sought within a reasonable time. Ahmed vs. Ghama (2005 SCMR 119): The Supreme Court held that a delay of 108 days in pursuing a case was sufficient ground to dismiss a petition for laches.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a declaratory suit challenging mutation No. 526 dated 29.08.1999, claiming that the mutation was recorded fraudulently by their father’s lessee, Bashir Ahmad, who obtained their father's thumb impression on blank papers. The trial court decreed in favor of the petitioners, declaring the mutation fraudulent and void. However, the respondents (defendants) appealed, and the appellate court overturned the trial court's decision, dismissing the suit. The petitioners filed a revision petition challenging the appellate court’s judgment. -----Issues: 1- Whether mutation No. 526, dated 29.08.1999, was valid and executed in accordance with the law? ----2- Whether the agreement to sell the disputed property was valid and supported by sufficient consideration? ----3- Did the appellate court err in reversing the trial court's decision and dismissing the suit? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Validity of the Mutation: The court held that the respondents failed to prove the validity of the mutation. The mutation was not properly executed as per section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and Rule 34 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The mandatory presence of Lambardar or Union Council members at the time of the mutation was not proven, and the revenue officer who processed the mutation was not produced for cross-examination. --Agreement to Sell: The court found that the respondents failed to establish that the agreement to sell was valid or that the consideration was paid. None of the witnesses could confirm that they witnessed the payment of consideration. The court emphasized that oral evidence of the consideration must be direct as required under Article 71 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which the respondents failed to provide. --Appellate Court's Error: The court concluded that the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court’s judgment. The respondents did not provide credible or direct evidence of the payment of consideration, and the balance of probabilities tilted in favor of the petitioners. As a result, the appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court’s decree was restored. The revision petition was allowed, and the trial court's decree canceling the mutation was reinstated. -----Citations/Precedents: Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar & 2 others (2015 SCMR 1) Muhammad Nazir v. Khurshid Begum (2005 SCMR 941) Abdul Sattar and others v. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2008 SCMR 1318) Phul Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima (2016 SCMR 1225) Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 SC 688) Zulfiqar and others v. Shahdat Khan (PLD 2007 SC 582) Khalil Ahmad v. Abdul Jabbar Khan (2005 SCMR 911) Farid Ullah Khan v. Irfan Ullah Khan (2022 SCMR 1231) Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Sadiq (2007 SCMR 957) Gulzar Ahmad and others v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2003 SCMR 1008) Mst. Rabia Gula and others v. Muhammad Janan and others (2022 SCMR 1009) Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947 All England Law Reports, Vol-2, Page 372) Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others (2021 SCMR 1986)

Summary: Pensionery benefits