Summary: The crux of the matter revolved around the respondent's dismissal from service, which led to a grievance petition filed with the NIRC. The petitioner initially participated in the proceedings but subsequently failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte judgment against them. Efforts to set aside this judgment, including an appeal to the Full Bench of the NIRC and a constitutional petition to the Lahore High Court, were unsuccessful. One key precedent cited was "Pir Bakhsh v. the Chairman, Allotment Committee" (PLD 1987 SC 145), which the Court used to discuss the principle of res judicata, emphasizing that a judgment becomes final if not appealed within the prescribed time frame.The Court also referred to "Mukhtiar Hussain versus Mst. Shafia Bibi" (2023 SCMR 159) to illustrate the consequences of a party's deliberate abstention from proceedings and the implications for seeking relief from an ex-parte decree.In discussing the doctrine of election and the consequences of choosing one legal remedy over others, the Court cited "Trading Corporation of Pakistan versus Devan Sugar Mills Limited and others" (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 828), highlighting that once a legal route is chosen, the petitioner is barred from pursuing alternative remedies for the same cause.Furthermore, the judgment addressed the application of the Limitation Act, referring to "Allah Dino and another versus Muhammad Shah and others" (2001 SCMR 286) to clarify the conditions under which the provisions of the Limitation Act apply, particularly in relation to statutory periods of limitation.The Supreme Court also underscored the public interest in finality and certainty in legal matters, citing "Ghulam Rasool and others versus Ahmad Yar and others" (2006 SCMR 1458), "Collector Sales Tax (East), Karachi versus Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another" (2008 SCMR 435), and "Messrs SKB-KNK Joint Venture Contractors through Regional Director versus Water and Power Development Authority and others" (2022 SCMR 1615) to emphasize the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the principle that rights accrue to the other party upon the expiry of such periods.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to grant leave to appeal. The judgment reinforced the principles of due diligence, the finality of legal decisions, and the careful selection of legal remedies, as guided by the cited precedents.

Summary: Issue:The primary issue was whether the withdrawal of the petitioner's candidature was lawful under the Elections Act, 2017, particularly in light of the alleged unauthorized withdrawal by Ijaz Ahmad.Judgment:The Lahore High Court accepted the petition, setting aside the order of withdrawal of the petitioner's candidature. The Court found that the purported authority letter used to withdraw the nomination was not in accordance with the law. Ch. Farhat Ullah, mentioned in the authority letter as an Oath Commissioner, testified that he never attested such a document, and his appointment had expired. The petitioner also confirmed that he never authorized the withdrawal. The Court noted the absence of the Returning Officer despite directions and found the respondents' stance on the withdrawal to be factually incorrect.Legal Principles:Article 199 of the Constitution: Governs the jurisdiction of High Courts regarding enforcement of fundamental rights.Section 65 of the Elections Act, 2017: Details the procedure for withdrawal of candidature, requiring a written notice by the candidate or an authorized advocate, with specific requirements for authorization attestation.Conclusion:The Lahore High Court ruled that the withdrawal of the petitioner's candidature was not conducted in accordance with the legal requirements and was thus set aside. The Election Commission of Pakistan was directed to remove the petitioner's name from the list of candidates who had withdrawn and to proceed in accordance with the law, thereby reinstating the petitioner's status as a valid candidate.

Summary: Background: A petition for leave to appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which upheld the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent had filed for dissolution of marriage, citing cruelty, non-payment of dower, and non-performance of marital obligations. ----Issues: Whether the trial court erred in decreeing the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, non-payment of dower, and non-performance of marital obligations. Whether the High Court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's appeal was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, affirming the dissolution of marriage. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to prove cruelty and other grounds for dissolution. However, the court found that the respondent provided sufficient evidence, including the petitioner's alleged illicit relations with another woman and failure to provide maintenance. The court emphasized that cruelty encompasses mental torture and not just physical abuse. Precedents were cited to support this interpretation. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner's conduct, including contracting a second marriage, supported the respondent's claims. Furthermore, the court found that the case did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance, as required for an appeal under the Family Courts Act. Precedents were cited to support this point. -----Citations/Precedents: [2018 SCR 1167] (Muhammad Sohrab vs. Sobia Hayat) [2014 SCR 718] (Muhammad Sabil Khan and another v. Saima Inshad) [1998 SCR 129] (Basharat Aziz vs. Mst. Dil Jan & 10 others) [PLD 2004 SC (AJ&K) 17] (Muhammad Younus v. Shahnaz Begum and others) [2002 CLC 730] (Musthtaq Hussain Khan v. Mst. Hafiza Aziz and 3 others) [2001 SCR 331] (Mushtaq Hussain Khan v. Mst. Hafeeza Aziz and 3 others)

Summary: Sections 371A/371B PPC shall not be attracted against copulation in a brothel house.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (Against the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in E.F.A. No. 50073 of 2019). Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 19 & 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, Rr. 89 & 90---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 166---Execution of decree---Objections---Limitation---Petitioners filed objections against sale of mortgaged property which objections were dismissed---Validity---Property was auctioned on 19-07-2016 while petitioners filed objections in Executing Court on 14-05-2019---Compliant with Article 166 of First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, only thirty days' time was provided for making any application for setting aside a sale in execution of decree, including any such application filed by judgment debtor---Petitioners filed their objection petition to sale after more than three years, and thus, the same was time barred---Supreme Court declined to interfere in order passed by High Court as there was no illegality in it---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Rai Azhar Iqbal Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1. Abdul Hameed Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 15th January, 2024.

Summary: Specific Relief Act ( I of 1877) --- ----S.54---Suit for settlement of accounts and permanent injunction---Absence of entitlement/proof---Suit, filing of---Scope and effect---Claim of the plaintiff was that the defendant continued to harass him for loan' recovery despite extracting extra payments from him (plaintiff)---Claim of the plaintiff was concurrently rejected---Validity---Petitioner/plaintiff placed nothing on record that respondent/defendant had advanced any loan and he (plaintiff) made any repayments to the respondent/ defendant---Petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove his case---Trial Court rightly observed that petitioner / plaintiff had no case---Record revealed that no legal grounds or special circumstances had been made out by the petitioner / plaintiff before the Appellate Court to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court --- Appellate Court had not fallen into any error while passing the impugned judgment as no case was made out before it ( Appellate Court) by the petitioner / plaintiff --- Even present revision filed by the plaintiff was frivolous and liable to be dismissed---High Court was minded to impose costs on the petitioner / plaintiff and his counsel, but chose not to do so---Revision, filed by plaintiff, was dismissed, in circumstances. Irfan Badar Abbasi for Applicant. Asad Ali Respondent No. 1. SHO P.S Waleed, Larkana Respondent No. 2. S.S.P., Larkana Respondent No. 3. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General, Sindh for Respondent No. 4. Judgment Jawad Akbar Sarwana, J .--- The Applicant ("Ghulam Abbas son of Dost Muhammad Kalhoro" / "Ghulam Abbas") has filed this Civil Revision No.53 of 2017 under Section 115 C.P.C. aggrieved by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge Larkana (the "Appellate Court") impugned Judgment dated 28.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No.78/2017 and the IInd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana (the "Trial Court") impugned Judgment and Decree dated 26.05.2017 in F.C. Suit No.66/2017 filed by Ghulam Abbas. Ghulam Abbas could not prove his case on the trial side, and his appeal against the aforementioned Judgment and Decree was also dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the Civil Revision based on the information available in the revision file is that allegedly Ghulam Abbas obtained a loan, apparently based on personal need, from the Respondent, Asad Ali son of Abdullah. Ghulam Abbas claims that he re-paid the loan to Asad Ali. When I asked the learned Counsel for Ghulam Abbas to show from the record available in the revision file when and how the loan was repaid, he conceded none was available on record. He claims that Asad Ali continued to harass him for the loan's recovery and allegedly extracted further payments from him. Accordingly, he filed a suit for Settlement of Account and Permanent Injunction, in which the suit went undefended, and after Ghulam Ali recorded his evidence and arguments were heard, it was dismissed. In appeal, Asad Ali entered an appearance and vehemently denied Ghulam Abbas's claim. Once again, the Appellate Court rejected Ghulam Abbas's claims, as set out in his appeal against the impugned Judgment and Decree. 3. The Applicant's placed nothing on record to show that Asad Ali advanced any loan, and Ghulam Abbas's made any repayments to him. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the record. 5. The Revision filed by Ghulam Abbas's is frivolous and liable to be dismissed. Ghulam Abbas's has miserably failed to prove his claim. The trial court has rightly observed that the Applicant has no case. No legal grounds or special circumstances have been made out to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Even otherwise, no case was made out by Ghulam Abbas before the Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court has not fallen into any error while passing the impugned judgment. This Court was minded to impose costs on Ghulam Abbas's and his Counsel but chose not to do so. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate and trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity which calls for any interference. These are the reasons for the Short Order dated 15.1.2024 dismissing this Revision. MQ/G-12/Sindh Revision dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XXI, Rr. 89 & 90—Setting aside sale in execution—Auction of mortgaged property—Grounds for challenge—Delay in filing objections—Petitioners failed to deposit sale price despite opportunity to match highest bid—Application for setting aside sale filed nearly three years after auction—Held, objection under Order XXI Rule 90, C.P.C. was barred by time in terms of Art. 166 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes a 30-day limitation—No material irregularity or fraud established in auction process, nor any substantial injury shown—Requirements under Rule 90 C.P.C. for setting aside sale not fulfilled—High Court had rightly dismissed Execution First Appeal and objections for being time-barred and meritless. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001: ----S. 19(7)—Scope—Ex-parte decree passed in banking suit—Subsequent applications and appeals seeking to set aside auction and confirm sale—Petitioners repeatedly failed to comply with court directions and did not deposit required sums—Held, Executing Court had acted in accordance with law; no legal infirmity found in auction confirmation order—Submissions regarding undervaluation of property and misreading of evidence found baseless—High Court judgment upheld. (c) Practice and Procedure: ----Delay—Equity—Judicial discretion—Petitioners approached courts at various stages but failed to demonstrate due diligence or make timely deposits—Petitioners’ conduct disentitled them from equitable relief—No interference warranted—Petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.