Summary: If there are reasonable grounds available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of heinous offence then he does not deserve concession of bail even on the ground of juvenility in the light of sub-Section: (6) of Section: 4 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018.

Summary: Undecided application going to the root of the matter causes prejudice to the rights of a party if without its decision final judgment is passed against the said party.

Summary: Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is vested with revisional powers under Section 47(5) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 with respect to an order passed in appeal by the Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Summary: In order to provide for constitution of Board of Revenue, the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1957") was promulgated. The Board of Revenue was constituted in terms of section 3 of the "Act, 1957", which was given the general superintendence and control over all Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts. Section 5 of the "Act, 1957" vests certain powers upon the Board. Section 8 of the "Act, 1957" bestows power of review upon the Board. Article 199 of the "Constitution" though bestows power upon this Court to issue different kinds of writs mentioned therein but powers so ordained are not unbridled as is evident from the bare perusal of Article 199 of the "Constitution". There is no cavil to the proposition that despite availability of alternate remedy, this Court is not precluded to exercise its jurisdiction as a rule of thumb and even in case of availability of alternate remedy, if the circumstances so demand that the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is inevitable, a High Court can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the "Constitution" but at the same time, such exercise cannot be made in an omnibus fashion. It is an oft repeated principle of law that where any party opts to choose a statutory remedy against an order, it cannot abandon or bypass it without any valid or reasonable cause and file constitution petition challenging such order. Such a trend is even offensive of doctrine of election. Guidance in this respect can be sought from COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-II and another v. HAMDARD DAWAKHANA (WAQF), KARACHI (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 847).

Summary: Order V "CPC" relates to issuance and service of summons. Ex-parte proceedings were ordered against the "respondent" while resorting to the mode of substituted service through publication in newspaper. Order V Rule 20 "CPC" prescribes the mode of substituted service.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 30.10.2021 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta passed in C.P. No.631 of 2021). (a) Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974)--- ----S. 4---Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974), S. 2(1)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 212---Employees of Balochistan Secretariat Service---Matter concerning terms and conditions of service- --Ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Questions and grievances relating to transfer and postings of a civil servant fell within the ambit of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant and thus were within the exclusive domain of an administrative Tribunal established under the command of Article 212 of the Constitution---In the present case, the respondents (employees of Balochistan Secretariat Service) were asserting a right which fell within their terms and conditions of service---They were admittedly civil servants within the meaning of the said expression as defined under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 ('Act of 1974')---There was nothing on record to show that the respondents had availed the departmental remedies provided under the law---It was mandatory for them to have agitated the grievance in the manner prescribed under the scheme of law applicable to a civil servant under the Act of 1974 and the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 ('the Tribunals Act)---Moreover, they had explicitly stated in the memorandum of the petition that the same matter was challenged and it was pending before the Tribunal---Objection regarding maintainability of the petition and its adjudication under Article 199 of the Constitution was raised by the Government but it was not adverted to by the High Court---Respondents were attempting to achieve an object which was not justiciable before the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution---Bar under Article 212 had ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court---Declaration made by the High Court was, therefore, not sustainable---Matter was already pending before the Tribunal and thus the latter had the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it---Petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, and the impugned judgment was consequently set aside. Ayyaz Anjum v. Government of Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department and others 1997 SCMR 169 and Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others 2007 SCMR 54 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 212---Civil service---Matter concerning terms and conditions of service---Bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution---Scope---Exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the bar contained under Article 212 are of such a nature that that they are attracted even if the grievance arises from an order which may involve questions of mala fide, coram non judice or having been passed without jurisdiction---Civil servant cannot bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by adding a ground of violation of fundamental right(s)---Service Tribunal will have exclusive jurisdiction in a case founded on the terms and conditions of service even if it involves the question of violation of fundamental rights---Service Tribunal will be vested with jurisdiction even where the case involves the vires of a statutory rule or notification---If a statutory rule or notification adversely affects the terms and conditions of a civil servant the same will be treated as a final order for the purposes of the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal. Syed Arshad Ali and others v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. and others 2008 SCMR 314; Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others 2007 SCMR 54; Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 2280; Asadullah Rashid v. Haji Muhammad Munir and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1371; Noor Badshahd Khattak v. Government of NWFP and others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1084 and I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others 1991 SCMR 1041 ref. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 5795 of 2021). Ayaz Khan Swati, Additional Advocate General, Balochistan for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2-Q of 2022) Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 13th December, 2023.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908):----O.XIII, R.1 & R.4; O.VII, R.14; O.XVIII, R.4---Documentary evidence---Admissibility---Procedure---Failure to prove documents through witnesses---Effect---Documents not exhibited through testimony of parties or witnesses---Held, documents merely marked or tendered through counsel’s statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence---Both trial and appellate courts erred by relying on such documents in absence of proper proof and cross-examination---Such practice violates due process and settled evidentiary norms.----Cited Cases:• Federation of Pakistan v. Jaffar Khan PLD 2010 SC 604• Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major (Retd.) Muzaffar Khan Malik PLD 2021 SC 715• Rustam v. Jehangir (deceased) through LRs 2023 SCMR 730• State Life Insurance Corp. v. Javaid Iqbal 2011 SCMR 1013(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984:----Art. 76---Production and proof of documentary evidence---Mandatory legal requirements---Failure to prove documents as per Article 76 renders them inadmissible---Courts below wrongly relied upon marked documents without proof or verification during testimony---Held, such reliance vitiates findings and judgment based thereon cannot be sustained.----Cited Cases:• Fazal Muhammad v. Mst. Chohara 1992 SCMR 2182• Feroz Din v. Nawab Khan AIR 1928 Lahore 432(c) Civil trial---Evidence---Marked vs. Exhibited documents:----Legal distinction---Court held that merely marking documents during counsel’s statement does not substitute proper exhibition through witness testimony---Adverse party must be given opportunity to cross-examine regarding authenticity and relevance of such documents---Failure to follow this procedure violates principles of fair trial and due process.**(d) Civil revision---Remand of case---Improper recording of evidence by trial court---Effect---Where lower courts fail to follow settled legal procedure in recording and appreciating evidence, particularly in regard to documentary proof, remand is appropriate---Held, entire trial vitiated for non-compliance with evidentiary procedure—Case remanded for retrial from stage of recording evidence afresh as per law.----Disposition:Civil Revisions Allowed. Impugned judgments and decrees set aside. Case remanded to trial court for fresh decision after proper recording of evidence. Trial court directed to decide matter expeditiously within six months.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199—Evacuee Trust Property Board—Lease of evacuee trust property—Authority of Minister—Jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib—Validity of orders—Cancellation of lease—Public interest. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and subsequent directions regarding the lease of evacuee trust property to Respondent No.1. The Court held that under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977, no provision empowered a Minister to make recommendations for the lease of evacuee property. Any recommendation made by a Minister for allotment or lease of public property without following due legal procedure was held void ab initio and illegal. Further, the Wafaqi Mohtasib lacked jurisdiction under Article 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 to direct compliance with an unlawful recommendation. -----Cited Cases: Ch. Munir Ahmad v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2022 Lahore 384) Province of Punjab v. District Bar Association, Khanewal (2014 SCMR 1611) American International School System v. Mian Muhammad Ramzan (2015 SCMR 1449) Raja Ali Zaman (decd.) v. Evacuee Trust Property Board (PLD 2022 SC 726) Khuda Bakhsh v. Khushi Muhammad (PLD 1976 SC 208) (b) Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975: ----S. 30—Lease of public property—Procedure—Public auction—Recommendations by unauthorized authority—Legality. The lease of an evacuee trust property must be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the 1977 Scheme, which mandate public auction or tender for allotment. Any lease granted on the mere recommendation of a Minister, bypassing statutory procedures, is void and unenforceable. The Court held that public property cannot be alienated arbitrarily or on discretionary recommendations without adhering to the statutory requirements. ----Cited Cases: Rehmatullah v. Saleh Khan (2007 SCMR 729) Hameedullah v. Headmistress, Government Girls School Chokara (1997 SCMR 855) Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2013 SC 641) (c) Administrative Law: ----Wafaqi Mohtasib—Jurisdiction—Direction to comply with Minister's recommendation—Scope of powers under Article 9 of the Ombudsman Order, 1983. The Wafaqi Mohtasib does not have jurisdiction under Article 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 to enforce compliance with recommendations made by a Minister if such recommendations are beyond statutory authority. The jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib is restricted to cases involving maladministration, and the allocation or lease of public property under statutory schemes does not fall within its purview. ----Cited Case: Master Chiragh Din v. Abdul Hakim (PLD 1974 Lahore 370) (d) Contract Act, 1872: ----S. 23—Public policy—Agreement opposed to law—Void ab initio. An agreement or allotment made in contravention of statutory provisions or public policy is void ab initio under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. The lease of public property without following prescribed legal procedures, even if based on ministerial recommendations, is unenforceable and null from its inception. ----Cited Cases: Hameedullah v. Headmistress, Government Girls School Chokara (1997 SCMR 855) Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2013 SC 641) (e) Public Property and State Assets: ----Custodianship of public assets—Role of courts—Obligation to protect public interest. Courts are the custodians of public property and have an inalienable obligation to ensure that public assets are not squandered or misallocated through arbitrary actions or misuse of authority. Any superstructure built on an unlawful lease or allotment must collapse automatically once the foundational order is declared void. ----Cited Cases: Provincial Government through Collector, Kohat v. Shabbir Hussain (PLD 2005 SC 337) Al-Shafique Housing Society v. P.M.A (PLD 1992 SC 113) Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423) (f) Rule of Law: ----Authority and jurisdiction—Exercise within legal limits—Illegality of actions beyond statutory mandate. Authorities and executive offices must act strictly within their statutory jurisdiction. Any act, order, or direction issued beyond the statutory mandate, including ministerial recommendations for lease of public property, is void ab initio. Courts must ensure adherence to statutory procedures to uphold the rule of law and prevent misuse of authority. (g) Disposition: ----Lease declared void—Orders set aside—Direction for compliance with law. The orders of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and subsequent directions were declared without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The lease of the plot to Respondent No.1 was canceled as void ab initio. The petitioner-Board was directed to proceed in accordance with the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the 1977 Scheme for any future actions. Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; lease canceled.