Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation---Oral bargain, assertion of---Proof---Deficiency---Petitioners/defendants assailed judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff by the District Court while reversing dismissal of suit by the Civil Court---Claim of the respondent / plaintiff was that he is owner of suit-property, however, the petitioners / defendants managed verbal mutation (the 'mutation') in their favour in connivance with revenue officials---Defence set-up by the petitioners / defendants in their pleading included oral bargain between the parties---Validity---Record revealed that the written statement was silent about the names of the witnesses of oral bargain, the agreement as well as the place and time when the bargain took place---The defence was setup in preliminary objections, whereas, on merit paragraphs of the plaint were evasively denied by simply stating that the facts stated therein are incorrect---Written statement was silent as to the witnesses of oral bargain; later one witness for defendants' side (claimed to be their tenant ) was introduced to fill the said gap, who also failed to produce any receipt of rent or payment of utility bills by him of the premises-in-question ; he claimed that documents reflecting payments of rents or utility charges were at his home but never bothered to produce such documents until today---On the other hand, the respondent / plaintiff stood by his pleadings in examination-in-chief, who was cross-examined but his answers to all the questions put to him remained reasonable---Respondent/plaintiff, inter alia, deposed that the petitioners were part of gang of land grabbers; his statement was supported by the lambardar as Plaintiff's Witness, through coherent evidence---Petitioners had failed to convince about any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court warranting interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstance. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation ---Genuineness of impugned- mutation---Proof---Deficiency---Petitioners/ defendants assailed judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff by the District Court while reversing dismissal of suit by the Civil Court---Claim of the respondent / plaintiff was that he is owner of suit-property, however, the petitioners / defendants managed verbal mutation (the 'mutation') in their favour in connivance with revenue officials---Defence set-up by the petitioners / defendants in their pleading include genuineness of the mutation---Validity---Record reveal that though the relevant Tehsildar and Patwari appeared as witnesses of defendants, however, mutation-in-question was witnessed by lambardar and Patidar, who were never produced by the petitioners ; somehow, the lambardar appeared from the respondent-side as Plaintiff's Witness and he denied his signatures on the mutation as well as passing of the mutation in his presence; his evidence remained coherent during cross-examination---There was no explanation on record for not producing the second preferred witness i.e. Patidar---Revenue law and the rules framed thereunder prefer mutation to be sanctioned in the presence of lambardar and respectable(s) of the relevant village, having clear rationale that such transactions have some inviolability and when required such respectable(s) can depose accordingly---In course of evidence, Tehsildar and Patwari as DWs stated that lambardar identified the respondent and witnessed the mutation, who already denied the event when he appeared as Plaintiff's Witness---Tehsildar or Patwari during the trial could not explain the reasons for not bringing pert-sarkar with them---No application for comparison of signatures of lambardar (Plaintiff's Witness) on the mutation was instituted---On the other hand, the respondent / plaintiff stood by his pleadings in examination-in-chief, who was cross-examined but his answers to all the questions put to him remained reasonable---Respondent/plaintiff, inter alia, deposed that the petitioners were the part of gang of land grabbers; his statement was supported by the lambardar as a Plaintiff Witness, through coherent evidence---Petitioners had failed to convince as to any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court warranting interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation---Agreement, non-production of---Effect---Petitioners/ defendants assailed judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff by the District Court while reversing dismissal of suit by the Civil Court---Claim of the respondent / plaintiff was that he is owner of suit- property, however, the petitioners / defendants managed verbal mutation (the 'mutation') in their favour in connivance with revenue officials---Defence set-up by the petitioners / defendants in their pleading included agreement having been executed between the parties---Validity---Record reveals that somehow, the agreement, one of the most crucial documents, was not produced during the trial or proceedings of appeal and then nine (09) years of present revision-petition---Thereafter, a miscellaneous application was instituted, in the year 2020, seeking permission to produce the agreement---The same reflected two witnesses as stamp-vendor---The names of the said persons were not only missing in the pleadings but there remained complete silence regarding them for 13 years---Miscellaneous application and the accompanied agreement was not just an attempt to derail the proceedings and to fill in lacuna but at the same time it was an attempt to prolong the status quo as to the suit property---On the other hand, the respondent / plaintiff stood by his pleadings in examination-in-chief, who was cross-examined but his answers to all the questions put to him remained reasonable---Respondent/plaintiff, inter alia, deposed that the petitioners are part of gang of land grabbers; his statement was supported by the lambardar as a Plaintiff's Witness, through coherent evidence---Petitioners failed to convince as to any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court warranting interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLI, R.31---Judgment passed by District (First Appellate) Court---Points for determination and issue-wise finding not recorded---Effect---Contention of the petitioners was that the points for determination had not been formulated in a sequential manner or issue-wise finding was not recorded---Validity ---Order XLI, R. 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 requires the written judgment of the Appellate Court to state (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled---Undeniably, non-adherence of the said provision can be fatal and the same can only be ignored if there has been a substantial compliance of the provision---Rationale behind the said provision is that not only the party losing the case but the next higher forum should know what weighed with the Court in deciding the lis against one party and in favour of the other---In the present case, the Appellate Court recorded the points raised by the two sides and gave findings of facts on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence and law applicable thereupon---The reasonings rendered by the Appellate Court were though brief but they were pertinent---Appellate Court had correctly allowed the suit---Thus, the contention of the petitioners had lost force since the material questions had already been answered in substantial compliance---Petitioners had failed to convince as to any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court warranting interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Pakistan Refinery Ltd., Karachi v. Barrett Hodgson Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2019 SCMR 1726; Ch. Abdul Kabeer v. Mian Abdul Wahid and others 1968 SCMR 464; Mst. Roshi and others v. Mst. Fateh and others 1982 SCMR 542 and Qadir Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs v. Allah Dewaya and another 2011 SCMR 1162 ref. Fida Hussain Rana for Petitioners. Amir Wakeel Butt, Syed Hassan Ali Gillani and Sahibzada Saleem Raza for Respondents along with Muhammad Siddique respondent in person. Date of hearing: 15th December, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against impugned order dated 19.12.2019 (NEPA) whereby review petition is accepted and impugned order dated was set aside

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Legislative Process: --- Articles 70 to 77 – Amendment in statute—Necessity of legislative process for amending an Act of Parliament. The Islamabad High Court held that any amendment, regardless of its size, in an Act of Parliament must undergo the legislative process outlined in Articles 70 to 77 of the Constitution. A corrigendum issued by the National Assembly Secretariat to amend Section 4(1) of the National University of Technology Act, 2018, was declared invalid as it circumvented the constitutional legislative procedure. (b) Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007 – Rule 261: --- Correction of patent errors—Limitations of Rule 261. Rule 261 empowers the Speaker of the National Assembly to correct patent errors in a Bill or resolution, provided such corrections are incidental or consequential to amendments approved by the House. The Court ruled that Rule 261 cannot be invoked to amend an Act of Parliament without adhering to the legislative procedure. (c) Statutory Interpretation – Role of Preamble: --- Preamble as an interpretive aid. The Court utilized the preamble of the National University of Technology Act, 2018, to resolve ambiguity in Section 4(1) of the Act. The preamble clarified that the purpose of the Act was to establish a university focused on engineering technologies, not general engineering degrees. The addition of a comma through the impugned corrigendum created grammatical inconsistency, further supporting the Court's decision. (d) Public Interest Litigation: --- Judicial review of legislative amendments without proper procedure. The Court affirmed that amendments made to statutes through irregular means, bypassing constitutional requirements, could be challenged by public interest litigants. Such challenges aim to uphold the fundamental right of citizens to ensure lawful legislative procedures. (e) Disposition: --- Corrigendum issued by National Assembly Secretariat declared void. The corrigendum dated 28.08.2019, inserting a comma in Section 4(1) of the National University of Technology Act, 2018, was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition was partly allowed.

Summary: ''The petitioners, failing to show that application for allocation of specific symbols was filed within time before the last date of its allocation, were not entitled to any relief.'' ---- Jatoi seeks a dove symbol instead of a feather, Dawood Khan a hukkah instead of a bowl, and Mannan Sajid a hukkah instead of a bottle.Legal Claims: The petitioners argue that they filed applications within the stipulated time for the allocation of their preferred symbols. They claim that the Returning Officers did not accede to their requests, allocating different symbols, which they assert is against the provisions of Section 67 of the Election Act, 2017.Proceedings and Responses: On January 18, 2024, notices were issued, and representatives of the Election Commission of Pakistan and respective Returning Officers appeared, denying the petitioners' claims about filing applications for specific symbols. It was pointed out that the petitioners had previously filed different Writ Petitions (Nos. 358, 359, and 374 of 2024) where the matter was referred to the Regional Election Commissioner for redressal. The Commissioner's decision on January 18, 2024, declined relief to the petitioners, stating that applications for the said symbols were not filed by the deadline (January 13, 2024).Court's Analysis and Decision: After examining the records and hearing the arguments, the judge found that the applications for symbol allocation were either dated incorrectly or did not have a date and receiving proof from the Returning Officers. The Court could not confirm if the requests were made within the stipulated time, making it a disputed fact not suitable for determination in constitutional jurisdiction. Since the petitioners failed to challenge the Regional Election Commissioner's decision, the Court concluded that it could not intervene in the matter of symbol allocation.Final Judgment: Consequently, the Court dismissed all three petitions for the reasons discussed.

Summary: Bail granted --- Lahore High Court, Multan Bench's decision dated 11.10.2023, which denied them post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 721 lodged on 04.07.2025 at Police Station Rohilen Wali, District Muzaffargarh. The FIR implicated them in a violent altercation resulting in one fatality and multiple injuries, under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). ---- Whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail under the circumstances of the case, especially considering the conflicting narratives between the complaint and the investigation findings. --- The Court found that the Regional Investigation Branch (RIB) of Dera Ghazi Khan, upon re-investigation, recommended the discharge of the petitioners, a decision later endorsed by the DPO, Dera Ghazi Khan. This fresh investigation presented a version of events that conflicted with the complainant's narrative, thus bringing the case within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which allows for bail in cases necessitating further inquiry. --- Principle:The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that liberty is a fundamental right, and mere allegations or the existence of multiple narratives cannot justify curtailing this right without substantial grounds. The Court emphasized that in cases where the investigative findings present a version different from the complainant's narrative, further inquiry is necessary, warranting the grant of bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. --- Key Citations: Muhammad Umer Wagas Barkat Ali vs. The State (2023 SCMR 930)Fahad Hussain vs. The State (2023 SCMR 364)Gul Muhammad vs. The State (2023 SCMR 857)Distinguished from Amir Faraz vs. The State (2023 SCMR 308), Muhammad Rafique vs. The State and others (PLD 2022 SC 694), Mudassar Altaf and another vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1861), and Muhammad Islam and others vs. The State [PLD 1967 SC 539]

Summary: Background: The petitioner a retired Junior Clerk from Girls High School Nalian, District Sudhnoti, filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974. He sought a direction for the issuance of his Pension Payment Order (PPO) and the payment of his monthly pension along with all related benefits, alleging undue delay and administrative negligence by the respondents. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents unlawfully delayed the issuance of the petitioner's Pension Payment Order. 2- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of his pension along with all benefits. 3- Whether the petitioner's fundamental right to pension has been violated due to the delay. 4- Whether the statutory provisions governing the timely processing of pensions have been ignored. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Unlawful Delay by Respondents: The court found that the respondents had indeed unlawfully delayed the issuance of the petitioner's Pension Payment Order, resulting in undue hardship and financial distress for the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's repeated applications and the submission of the required affidavit, the respondents failed to take timely action. --Entitlement to Pension: The court reaffirmed that the petitioner, having retired on 26.02.2017, is entitled to his pension and all associated benefits as per the statutory provisions. The court emphasized that pension is not a bounty but a vested right accruing from past service. --Violation of Fundamental Right: The court noted that the delay in processing the petitioner's pension contravened the principles of good governance and administrative justice. The statutory obligation to process pension applications promptly was not met, thereby violating the petitioner's legitimate expectation of timely pension payments. --Ignored Statutory Provisions: The court highlighted the relevant statutory provisions under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Pension) Rules, 1971, which mandate the initiation and completion of pension papers well before the retirement date. The failure to adhere to these rules resulted in the undue delay. The court accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents to take immediate action to finalize the petitioner's pension matter within one month. The Education Department was also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the undue delay and administrative negligence. ----Citations/Precedents: The court referred to various precedents emphasizing the right to pension, including Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (AIR 1971 SC 1409) and Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust v. Muhammad Arif (2015 SCMR 1412), among others. The statutory provisions under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Pension) Rules, 1971, were also cited to underline the mandatory nature of timely pension processing.

Summary: Background: An appeal was filed under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, against the judgment passed by the Additional Session Judge, Mirpur, on 16.12.2021. The appellant was sentenced to seven years of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000. In case of default in payment of the fine, the appellant would face an additional three months of imprisonment. The appellant was also granted the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. An FIR (No. 102/2021) under sections 9-C and 32 of CNSA was registered against the appellant at Police Station City Mirpur on 16.05.2021. The trial court ordered the prosecution to present evidence after the appellant pleaded not guilty. Nine prosecution witnesses (P.Ws.) recorded their statements. The trial court convicted the appellant based on this evidence, leading to the current appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence presented by the prosecution. 2- Whether the absence of independent witnesses at the public place of arrest affects the validity of the conviction. 3- Whether the delay in sending the recovered material for chemical examination impacts the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The trial court's decision was scrutinized, revealing that no private witnesses were involved despite the arrest occurring in a public place. This omission violated Section 103, Cr.P.C, and raised doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution's story. The delay in sending the contraband for chemical examination (six days) contradicted Rule 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which mandates sending the material within 72 hours. This delay cast further doubt on the prosecution's case. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in the witnesses' statements and procedural lapses. The burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution, and any doubt benefits the accused. ----Citations/Precedents: 2022 SCR 334 2021 SCR 516 2018 YLR 2358 2016 MLD 920 2009 P.Cr.LJ 1334 Muhammad Waseem Mughal Vs. The State (PLD 2023 High Court (AJ&K) 11) Khursheed Hussain Shah vs. State and another (2022 SCR 334) 2021 YLR 662 (Peshawar High Court) Tariq Parvez Vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Abdul Majeed vs. State (2023 PCr.LJ 331) Lal Bux vs. State (2023 YLR 321) Amer Zeb vs. The State (PLD 2012 SC 386) Asmattullah Pathan vs. State (2023 P.Cr.LJ 48) Mst. Haseena Baloch vs. The State (2018 YLR 32) Mir Muhammad vs. State (2008 MLD 1333) Akhtar Ali vs. State (2009 P.Cr.LJ 50) 2013 YLR 982 2014 P.Cr.LJ 611 2011 P.Cr.LJ 1046 The appeal was accepted, and the judgment of the Additional Session Judge, Mirpur, was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charges due to the benefit of the doubt.

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(s), 16 & 181---Vehicle allegedly used for transportation of Smuggled goods---Outright confiscation---Tampered chassis number, allegation of---Forensic report, reliance on---Scope---Release on payment of redemption fine, option of---Scope---Appellant, while challenging outright confiscation of the impugned vehicle carrying smuggled goods, conveyed willingness to pay redemption fine if department would release the vehicle, exercising its option in terms of S.181 of the Customs Act, 1969---Forensic Science Lab (FSL) reports were not reliable source of determination of genuineness or otherwise---The report of the FSL was insufficient to authorize the Directorate to detain and / or seize the vehicle, inter alia, on the ground that it was smuggled vehicle---FSL Report cannot be considered as conclusive proof to establish the charge of smuggling on allegation regarding tampered chassis number---The report of FSL was insufficient to authorize the Directorate of Customs, Intelligence and Investigation, to detain and or seize the vehicle, inter alia, on the ground that it was smuggled vehicle---The report of FSL was insufficient to detain or seize the subject vehicle, inter alia, on the ground that the said vehicle is tampered--- In view of said legal and factual position, in the present case , the appellant was allowed to redeem the impugned vehicle under S. 181 of Customs Act, 1969 on payment of redemption fine equal to 20% of the value of vehicle---Impugned Order-in-Original was modified to the said extent only---Appeal was disposed of accordingly. C.P. No.1802-L/2020; C.P. No.D-2280 of 2010 and Federation of Pakistan through Director General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR Karachi v. Muhammad Jamal Rizvi and others 2012 PTD 90 ref. Muhammad Usman Malik for Appellant. Humayun Naseer, Inspector for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th January, 2024.

Summary: The following points are discussed in this judgment firstly, validity of gift transaction; secondly, effect of non-challenging of gift by the donor and; thirdly, limitation.