Summary: The appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b) P.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chiniot------------There is no delay in reporting the incident and lodging the FIR, which is prompt in the facts and circumstances of the case.---------- The eyewitness account is corroborated by the medical evidence.-------The prosecution witnesses had not made a definite improvement on the version given in the Fard bayan (Exh.PA) and private complaint (Exh.PD). No doubt, beyond every reasonable doubt, the prosecution has to establish the charge. Still, the law does not insist that the prosecution proved the same with arithmetical accuracy as it is not always possible for the witness to give photographic memory or description owing to human limitations.-----------The cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the defence reveals that the defence indirectly admitted the motive part of the evidence.------------However, we have observed the factors which have persuaded us not to uphold the capital sentence of the appellant as neither number of motorcycle (P-3) was mentioned in FIR or the private complaint, nor ownership of the motorcycle (P-3) was brought on the record and no crime empty was recovered from the place of the occurrence, so recovery of Rifle 244 bore (P-4) is of no consequence.--------- As the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Noor Muhammad, the deceased, in such an eventuality, the same can be considered a mitigating circumstance.---------Based on the grounds discussed hereinabove, we believe that mitigating circumstances exist about the quantum of the appellant's sentence. Therefore, in our view death sentence awarded to the appellant is quite harsh.----------The well-recognized principle is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as an extenuating circumstance while deciding his question sentence.------Resultantly, the appeal, filed by the appellant, Raiz is dismissed. However, his (the appellant's) death sentence is converted into imprisonment for life.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Taunsa Sharif, in a case related to an armed robbery and murder (FIR No. 1 dated 11.01.2015). The appellant was also ordered to pay Rs. 500,000 in compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, failing which he would face six months of simple imprisonment. The appellant challenged the conviction through Criminal Appeal No. 1164/2018, while the trial court referred the case for confirmation of the death sentence through Murder Reference No. 6/2019. During the proceedings, the court was informed that Khuda Bakhsh had passed away on the night between 4th and 5th November 2022 in the hospital while under custody. Consequently, the appeal was discussed in light of the appellant's death. -----Issues: 1- Does the appeal abate due to the death of the appellant? ----2- Can the appeal be continued by the legal heirs of the deceased? ----3- What is the legal status of the conviction and the pending appeal following the death of the appellant? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Abatement of Appeal Due to Death: The court held that under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the appeal abates upon the death of the appellant, except for the portion related to a fine. Since Khuda Bakhsh was sentenced to death and compensation, and not a fine, the appeal stands abated. The court rejected the argument from the appellant’s counsel, who suggested continuing the appeal based on Indian law (Section 394 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure), as the Pakistani law (lex fori) governs the case, and no such provision exists in Pakistani law for continuing an appeal after the death of the appellant. --Compensation Not Considered as Fine: The court clarified that the compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with a fine, citing prior judgments. Therefore, the abatement of the appeal in this case extends to both the death sentence and the compensation. --Effect of Abatement: The court explained that abatement of a criminal appeal following the death of the accused results in the nullification of all criminal proceedings, as if the accused had never been charged. The conviction is no longer valid, and the appellant is effectively exonerated from the charges. --Impact on Legal Heirs and Service Benefits: The appellant’s counsel raised concerns regarding the appellant’s service benefits, as Khuda Bakhsh had been a government servant. The court held that since the conviction is nullified due to abatement, the deceased’s legal heirs are entitled to any service benefits. The court noted that no departmental proceedings against Khuda Bakhsh were reported, and abatement of the appeal should not adversely affect the appellant’s posthumous rights, including service benefits. The appeal abated as per Section 431 of Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the murder reference, and the death sentence was not confirmed due to the appellant’s death. -----Citations/Precedents: Sheikh Iqbal Azam Farooqui through Legal Heirs v. The State (2020 SCMR 359) Dr. Ghulam Hussain v. The State (1971 SCMR 35) Muhammad Arshad v. The State and another (2018 P Cr.L J 1513) Muhammad Shamoon (Deceased) through Legal Representative v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1144) United States v. Estate of Parsons (367 F.3d 409, 5th Cir. 2004) Harnam Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (1975 SCC 343)

Summary: Merely being in possession of the suit property could not be made a basis to equip the petitioner with injunction for an indefinite period, unless the right to continue to hold the said possession under some legal right is established on the record.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---Civil Procedure Code CPC (Declaration, Injunction and Partition. suit time barred.)----Ss. 42 & 54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 13---Suit for declaration, injunction and partition---Limitation--- Family settlement---Arbitration award---Scope---Claim of ownership or share in the suit property which was never raised by the father of plaintiff in his lifetime could not be raised by one of his legal heirs after twelve years of his death---Share of plaintiff's father in the joint family business had not been handed over to him and his other legal heirs---Plaintiff had no title and right in the suit property and he had prayed for its partition---Validity---Plaintiff should have impleaded his other brothers and sisters as legal heirs of his deceased father and prayed for declaration of joint ownership which he had not done---Plaintiff was bound to explain as to how the relief sought by him in the present suit was within limitation---Present suit did not fall within the ambit of administration of property for which no limitation was applicable---Right to seek declaration of ownership accrued to the plaintiff in the year 1985; plaintiff should have approached the Housing Society within six years for mutation of his share in the record of said society---Limitation to claim ownership in the suit property had expired in July 1991---Right to sue for partition of immovable property would accrue only to the owner against co-owner irrespective of possession---Plaintiff was not owner of suit property and family settlement and arbitration award could not be enforced against lawful owner of immovable property---Mere construction on the suit property did not create right and interest adverse to the owner of said property---Law did not recognize possession of an immovable property as ownership rights---Ownership was dependent on the title document and not on mere residence/ possession of immovable property---Plaintiff had no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: Instant petition disposed---suit for specific performance

Summary: NAB (Pre arrest bail rejected , They Cheated public at large by Launching bogus housing Society, obtained money and not given Plot.)

Summary: Non availability of Full Bench of NIRC; held no coercive measures are to be adopted against aggrieved persons till such time their Appeals are decided by the Full Bench

Summary: Background: The petitioner, after the death of his father, sought a No Demand Certificate (NDC) for a plot of land originally owned by his father in the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), Lahore. The plot was previously listed for auction by a decree-holder in a case involving a different individual (the judgment-debtor). Despite clarifications from DHA and the court that the judgment-debtor had no claim to the plot, DHA refused to issue the NDC, citing a court caution against the property due to the earlier case. The petitioner challenged DHA’s refusal to issue the NDC in court. ------Issues: 1- Whether DHA was justified in continuing the caution marked against the property after the judgment-debtor was found to have no claim to the plot. ----2- Whether the refusal to issue the NDC to the petitioner and other legal heirs was lawful despite the transfer of the decree to another jurisdiction. ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Caution Against the Plot: The court held that DHA had no justification for continuing the caution on the property. Once the court and DHA had clarified that the judgment-debtor had no connection to the plot, the caution should have been removed. The transfer of the decree to a different jurisdiction (Ghotki, Sindh) further rendered the caution irrelevant. --Issuance of NDC: The court ruled that DHA's refusal to issue the NDC was unlawful. Given that the legal proceedings concerning the plot were no longer active and the property had been transferred to the petitioner and other legal heirs, DHA was obligated to issue the NDC once the necessary formalities were completed. The court set aside DHA’s refusal to issue the NDC and directed the authority to issue the certificate to the petitioner and other legal heirs without further delay.

Summary: Background: In the case between a financial institution and a private company, the applicants/judgment debtors objected to an auction of land measuring 180 Kanals conducted during the execution proceedings. The auction was conducted on 14.12.2017, and the property, valued at over Rs. 400 million, was sold for Rs. 185 million. The judgment debtors challenged the auction on the grounds of alleged illegalities and irregularities in the auction proceedings, which were conducted in connection with a decree in a banking suit. -----Issues: 1- Was the auction process, including the publication of auction notices and execution of the sale, conducted in accordance with the law? -----2- Can an objection petition be maintained without the deposit of 20% of the auction sale amount as per Order XXI Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)? -----3- Did the alleged irregularities in the auction process result in substantial injury to the judgment debtors? -----4- Were the rights of the auction purchaser affected by the irregularities in the auction process? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Auction Process: The court held that the auction proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law, including the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001 and Order XXI of the CPC. Although the auction proclamation was published only in the English newspaper "The Nation" and not in Urdu, this alone did not invalidate the auction proceedings. --Deposit of 20% of Auction Price: The court emphasized that, under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC, it is mandatory to deposit 20% of the auction sale price before filing an objection petition. As the judgment debtors failed to make this deposit, the objection petition was deemed non-maintainable. --Substantial Injury: The court ruled that the judgment debtors failed to prove any substantial injury resulting from the alleged irregularities. It noted that mere irregularities in the auction process do not suffice to set aside the sale unless a significant injury is demonstrated. --Auction Purchaser’s Rights: The court highlighted that the auction sale does not vest any legal rights in the highest bidder until the court confirms the sale. In this case, the court found no grounds to set aside the sale, and the rights of the auction purchaser were upheld. The objection petition was dismissed for being non-maintainable. -----Citations/Precedents: Faysal Bank Limited vs. Sajjad Aslam and Others (2022 CLD 123) Zakaria Ghani vs. Muhammad Ikhlaq Memon (PLD 2016 SC 229) Messrs Hanif Metal Store vs. Bank of Punjab (2017 CLD 447) Muhammad Attique vs. Jami Limited (PLD 2010 SC 993) Afzal Maqsood Butt vs. Banking Court No. 2, Lahore (PLD 2005 SC 470) Captain-PQ Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs. Messrs A.W. Brothers and Others (2004 SCMR 1956) Muhammad Khalil vs. Faisal M.B. Corporation (2019 SCMR 321) Messrs Spinghar Textile Mills Ltd. vs. United Bank Limited (2011 CLD 1683) Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. vs. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. (PLD 1987 SC 512)

Summary: Background: The appellant, a contractual employee, filed a constitutional petition seeking reinstatement and regularization of his service after being unlawfully restrained from continuing his job. The appellant’s service had been terminated, and the learned Single Judge dismissed his petition. The appellant challenged this dismissal through an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, arguing that his counsel was not provided an opportunity to be heard during the proceedings. -----Issues: 1- Whether the termination of a contract employee can be challenged through a writ petition seeking reinstatement and regularization. ----2- Whether the appellant was deprived of a fair hearing, as his counsel was not present due to lack of notice regarding the hearing. ----3- Whether the writ petition could be dismissed solely on the ground that it was filed against NESPAK, a party that may not fall within the court’s writ jurisdiction. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Reinstatement of a Contract Employee: The court held that the appellant, as a contract employee, could not seek reinstatement or regularization. It cited the principle that a contract employee’s remedies are limited to claiming damages for wrongful termination rather than reinstatement in service, as per established case law. --Lack of Hearing: The appellant's claim that his counsel was not provided an opportunity to be heard was dismissed. The court reasoned that any defect due to the absence of counsel was cured through the appellate hearing before the Division Bench, as supported by legal precedents. --Maintainability Against NESPAK: Even if the petition was found to be maintainable against NESPAK, the court concluded that the primary issue was the non-maintainability of the appellant’s request for reinstatement, which rendered any discussion on NESPAK irrelevant. The court dismissed the Intra Court Appeal, affirming the decision of the Single Judge, stating that the appellant's grounds for appeal lacked merit. -----Citations/Precedents: 2022 SCMR 1680 (Faraz Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan) 2013 SCMR 120 (Federation of Pakistan vs Muhammad Azam Chattha) 2019 SCMR 648 (Qazi Munir Ahmed vs Rawalpindi Medical College) 2015 PLC (CS) 1385 (Lt. Col. (Retd.) Sultan Zeb Khan vs Board of Governors, Fazle Haq College) PLD 2007 SC 133 (Federation of Pakistan vs Haji Muhammad Sadiq) PLD 1983 SC 358 (Zaibtun Textile Mills Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue) 1984 CLC 2002 (Rashidullah Khan vs Government of Sind)