Summary: Documents Upon Which prosecution can be structured must be supplied to the accused well in time, If Not Supplied Such A Document Cannot Be Used As Evidence Later Without The Consent Of The Other Party Or The Court --- The petitioner challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge which denied the petitioner's request for a copy of the Call Data Record (CDR) mentioned in the recovery memo --- The primary contention raised by the petitioner, through counsel Malik Saeed Ejaz, centered on the right of the defense to access relevant documents crucial for trial preparation. The petitioner relied on legal precedent, specifically citing "The STATE versus Chaudhry MUHAMMAD USMAN" (2023 SCMR 1676), to assert that the court retains the authority to summon essential documents at any stage of the inquiry or trial, even post the disclosure stage under section 265-C of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).The judgment delved into the constitutional dimension, invoking Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees due process and a fair opportunity to the accused. Justice Rafiq emphasized that denial of access to material evidence, such as the CDR in question, would constitute a violation of this fundamental right.Addressing the legal nuances, the judgment scrutinized Articles 159 and 160 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Article 159 establishes the obligation of a party to present a document in evidence if it has been called for and inspected by the other party. Article 160 underscores the consequence of a party's refusal to produce a document after notice ? such a document cannot be used as evidence later without the consent of the other party or the court.The judgment highlighted the interplay between the right of the accused to access material evidence and the principle of fairness in legal proceedings. It asserted that, under the principles of due process, the accused must be given adequate time and opportunity to prepare a defense against evidence that may be used against them.In conclusion, Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq allowed the revision petition, acknowledging the petitioner's entitlement to a copy of the CDR and recovery memo before the appearance of the relevant witness, Dilawar Hussain SI/I.O.

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) --- The revision petition sought to challenge an earlier decision related to the partition of joint land in a village in Chakwal under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.The court observed that a question was raised regarding the maintainability of the petition, suggesting that the remedy of review under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, might be more appropriate. The petitioner argued that the remedy of review was not efficacious, and the constitutional petition was maintainable. On the other hand, the respondents contested the maintainability of the petition.The judgment delves into the background of the case, outlining the various stages of the proceedings related to the partition application and subsequent appeals. It also highlights the relevant sections of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, empowering the Board with control over revenue matters.The court then discusses Article 199 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction if no other adequate remedy is provided by law. However, the judgment emphasizes that the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction should not be made in an omnibus fashion and cites precedents cautioning against bypassing statutory remedies without valid reasons.In conclusion, the court finds that the petition is not maintainable, dismissing it without costs. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and discourages the trend of bypassing them without compelling and justifiable reasons.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a suit for declaration, specific performance, and injunction against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Rawalpindi. Due to the respondents' absence, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 7th February 2020, and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 5th July 2021. The respondents filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to annul the decree, which was accepted on 7th July 2023. The petitioners' revision petition against this decision was dismissed on 14th October 2023, leading to the current petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court's decision to proceed ex-parte against the respondents was lawful. 2- Whether the annulment of the ex-parte decree by the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the revision petition by the Additional District Judge were justified. 3- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Ex-parte Proceedings: The trial court proceeded ex-parte against the respondents due to their absence and issued a proclamation in the newspaper without proper efforts for personal service. The trial court did not follow the mandatory provisions of Order V Rules 16, 18, and 19 of the CPC, which require substantial compliance before resorting to substituted service through publication. ---Annulment of Ex-parte Decree: The respondents were residents of England, and proper service procedures, including personal service and postal communication, were not followed. The court found that the substituted service was invalid, as it was not justified by prior efforts to serve the respondents personally. Consequently, the ex-parte proceedings and decree were annulled, and this decision was affirmed by the revisional court. ---Relief under Article 199: The petitioners failed to demonstrate any material irregularity or legal perversity in the decisions of the lower courts. The petitioners' request for writ of certiorari under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan was found to lack merit, as they could not show that the annulled order was without lawful authority or suffered from material illegalities. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, upholding the decisions of the lower courts to annul the ex-parte decree and denying the petitioners' request for relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Citations/Precedents: Mrs. NARGIS LATIF vs Mrs. FEROZ AFAQ AHMED KHAN (2001 SCMR 99) Haji AKBAR and others vs GUL BARAN and 7 others (1996 SCMR 1703) WAPDA vs GHULAM HUSSAIN (2000 CLC 530) Syed SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs Messrs FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES LTD. (2003 CLC 1011) MEHR DIN through Legal Heirs vs AZIZAN and another (1994 SCMR 1110) AMJAD KHAN v. MUHAMMAD IRSHAD (DECEASED) through LRs (2020 SCMR 2155) CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEPCO and others v. MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others (2019 SCMR 919)

Summary: Background: An appeal was filed under Section 114 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, against an order passed by the Intellectual Property Tribunal, Lahore. The respondent instituted a suit claiming to be the bona fide owner and prior user of the trademark "SAMSARA" or "SAMSARA by Khadija Batool." The respondent alleged that the registration and use of the mark "SAMSARA Couture House (Pvt.) Limited" by the appellants infringed her rights. The Tribunal granted an interim injunction restraining the appellants from using the disputed mark. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent has established a prima facie case of prior use and goodwill of the trademark "SAMSARA." 2- Whether the requirements for granting an interim injunction, such as prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, are met. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the respondent did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of prior use and goodwill of the trademark "SAMSARA." The documents provided by the respondent, including invoices and Facebook pages, need to be verified during the trial. The court noted that the partnership agreement between the parties, which is undisputed, indicates that the business name "SAMSARA" was agreed upon by both parties, with no mention of prior use by the respondent. The court concluded that the three necessary elements for granting an interim injunction (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss) were not co-existing in this case. The order of the Intellectual Property Tribunal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal was directed to decide the suit on its merits within five months. ----Citations/Precedents: Messrs Unique School vs. Messrs Unique Group of Institutions, 2015 CLD 1297 Pioneer Cement Limited through Company Secretary vs. Fecto Cement Limited through Chief Executive Officer and 3 others, 2013 CLD 201 Qadeer Ahmed vs. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, The Trade Marks Registry and another, 1999 YLR 96 Muhammad Kashan vs. Coca Cola Export Corporation through Chief Executive Officer and 3 others, 2015 CLD 1513 Yaqoob vs. Additional Settlement Commissioner, Karachi and 2 others, 1973 SCMR 116 Kohinoor Soap and Detergents (Private) Ltd through Chief Executive of the Company vs. Basra Soap Factory and 4 others, 2002 CLD 1223, Karachi

Summary: Background: The petitioner stood as a surety for an accused, Muhammad Siddique, in a criminal case under sections 324/341, 337-D, 337-F(3), 34 of the Azad Penal Code (APC), and section 15(2) of the Arms Act. Upon the accused's failure to appear, the Additional Sessions Judge of Kotli ordered the forfeiture of the surety bond worth Rs. 10,00,000 and initiated proceedings for the attachment and auction of the petitioner’s property. ----Issues: 1- Whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge for forfeiture of the bond and attachment of property was passed without due process. 2- Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain or contest the forfeiture before the property attachment order was issued. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Due Process Violation: The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 514 Cr. P. C., which requires three stages: recording reasons for forfeiture, calling upon the person bound by the bond to pay the penalty or show cause, and considering any explanation provided by the person bound by the bond. The order was deemed non-speaking and procedurally flawed. Opportunity to Contest: The petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain or contest the forfeiture, as required by law, before the order of attachment of property was issued. The High Court quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 03.01.2023, and all subsequent proceedings were declared illegal and ineffective. The case was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for a decision in accordance with the law. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C) This section outlines the procedure for the forfeiture of bonds and requires the court to: Record the reasons for forfeiture. Call upon the person bound by the bond to pay the penalty or show cause why it should not be paid. Consider any explanation provided by the person before proceeding with the recovery of the penalty through attachment and sale of property.

Summary: Section 29(2) of Limitation Act excludes the application of section 5 for condonation of delay in filing appeal against acquittal under section 48 of CNSA, 1997.

Summary: Cartridge cases in a case will be submitted to Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore for comparison with weapon and if any accused in the case is absconder, then said cartridge cases after exhibition during trial of any other accused in criminal case will be again deposited in the office of PFSA, Lahore till their comparison with weapon recovered from any absconding accused.

Summary: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (V of 1977)--- ----S. 12---Tribunal, jurisdiction of---Scope---Suit for declaration filed by respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal constituted under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977, was decreed---Respondent No.1, being served with a notice dated 28.02.2014 issued by Assistant Commissioner, filed civil suit before the Tribunal seeking therein declaration to the effect that khasra No.233 of the revenue estate measuring 04-marla was the ownership of his father, on whose death, it was devolved upon him---Entries of the revenue papers in favour of Provincial Government required rectification as the petitioners/defendants could not deny the ownership right of the plaintiff---Prayer for cancellation of notice issued by petitioner No.1 was also sought, with a further prayer that the petitioners/defendants be perpetually restrained from altering the nature of the property and transfer thereof through any means---Prayer for recovery of possession of the disputed property was also sought in case the plaintiff had lost possession during pendency of the suit and lastly, an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and damages caused to his construction and household articles were also sought---Suit was resisted by the petitioners through their written statement on different legal and factual objections---Completion of evidence resulted into a decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for declaration, cancellation of notice, perpetual injunction and recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- as damages/compensation of the construction etc.---Validity---Tribunal could only grant negative declaration that the property reflected in the notice was not a public property but to the extent of rest of the reliefs that the entries in favour of Provincial Government in the revenue papers were inoperative upon the right of the plaintiff or for the recovery of damages caused to his construction, did not falling within the domain of the Tribunal and in such an eventuality, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal to the extent that the notice issued to respondent/plaintiff was against the law could be maintained but the intriguing aspect of the matter was that after the acceptance of writ petition and before approaching the Tribunal in the year 2016 through the suit by the plaintiff, his alleged owned property had been demolished by the petitioners/defendants and now at the spot, there was no constructed house, thus the notice issued by the petitioner No. 1 and served upon the respondent/plaintiff had lost its efficacy, and there was no need for any decree perpetual in nature restraining the petitioners/defendants from altering or demolishing his property as it was done earlier to the institution of the present suit---In such circumstances, resolution of the controversy was required from the civil Court that the entries in the revenue papers in favour of Provincial Government were ineffective upon the right of the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 along with other ancillary reliefs, which was the sole domain of the civil Court---Since the decree of the Tribunal for declaration, injunction and recovery of damages had been set aside, therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal shall in no way be a bar against the plaintiff and shall not create any obstacle towards his relief, which suit, if any, filed by the plaintiff shall be decided on its own merits by the Court without being influenced by the observation of the High Court---Constitution petition was disposed of accordingly. Kaleem Shah and 16 others v. Sawab Khan and 17 others PLD 2002 SC 200; Muhammad Farid and others v. Municipal Committee PLD 1999 SC 41; Mian Hakim Ullah and 2 others v. Additional District Judge/Tribunal, Nowshera and 4 others 1993 SCMR 907; Municipal Committee Mingora through Chief Municipal Officer v. Nasar Khan and 8 others 2016 MLD 1610; Pakistan Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works, Islamabad and another v. H.H Ahmad 1971 SCMR 626 and Salahuddin Khan and 03 others v. Sultan-e-Rome and 04 others PLD 1973 Pesh. 95 rel. Inayat Ullah Khan, A.A.G for Petitioners. Aziz-ur-Rehman Swati for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 12th December, 2023.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 05.1.2022 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 814(R)CS of 2019). (a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973--- ----Rr. 7 & 7-A---Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 9---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 5---Ante-dated promotion---Proforma promotion---Federal Service Tribunal, jurisdiction of---Whether the Tribunal was competent and vested with jurisdiction to declare the respondent (retired civil servant) 'qualified' for promotion when others were promoted and then simultaneously direct the competent authority to consider him for proforma promotion---Held, that it is implicit from the scheme provided under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 ('Act of 1973') read with the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 ('Rules of 1973') that promotion to a higher post is confined to a civil servant who has not retired or superannuated after attaining the age of superannuation---Said scheme does not contemplate for a civil servant to be considered for promotion after retirement or having attained the age of superannuation---Civil servant who has retired after attaining the age of superannuation cannot claim to be considered for promotion to a higher post---Question of evaluating the fitness or suitability for promotion has always been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent authority and it is not shared by the Service Tribunal or a Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction in respect of eligibility and qualification---Tribunal is, therefore, not competent nor vested to alter, vary or in any manner modify the scheme of promotion to a higher post explicitly prescribed under the Act of 1973 and the Rules of 1973---In the present case the Tribunal had transgressed its jurisdiction by declaring the respondent (retired civil servant) to be 'qualified' for promotion from the date others were promoted---Tribunal also fell in error by pre-empting the process required to be adopted by the designated forum for determining the eligibility and entitlement of the respondent for the purposes of proforma promotion---Petition was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed. (b) Civil service--- ----Promotion---Not a vested right---Promotion is neither a vested right nor could it be claimed with retrospective effect---What a civil servant may claim as of right under the law is that the latter should be considered when the cases for promotion are taken up---Civil servant cannot call upon a Tribunal or Court to direct the department to fill the promotion post forthwith or on a particular date or to keep it vacant or under consideration. Abid Hussain Shirazai v. Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production 2005 SCMR 1742 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Chairman Railway Board 1999 SCMR 1559 ref. (c) Administration of justice--- ---If the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done accordingly, otherwise it would not be in compliance with the legislative intent. Zia ur Rehman v. Syed Ahmed Hussain and others 2014 SCMR 1015 ref. Rana Asadullah Khan, Additional Attorney General for Petitioners. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 12th December, 2023.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.12 & 24(b)---Remaining sale consideration deposited in the Government treasury through court in a suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner---Fraudulent withdrawal/embezzlement of such amount by a court employee without any role of the depositor/ petitioner---Petitioner claimed refund of the remaining sale consideration deposited with the Trial Court after culmination of litigation against him from the Supreme Court---Validity---Civil Court had confirmed embezzlement of the amount in question and zero involvement of the petitioner and despite observing that Provincial Government was liable to return the amount, the matter was referred to the High Court---High Court opined that if each case of similarly placed person was referred to Administrative Committee of High Court, it would cause delay in dispensation of justice and amount to keeping the affectees of such like embezzlement remediless---High Court held that if embezzled amount was deposited in Government treasury on court's direction, the same Court on an application by the claimant shall determine that whether the amount was embezzled, not paid to the party so entitled, and that the claimant had no role, direct or indirect, in the fraud and shall itself direct the Provincial Government for payment of the amount to the entitled person, within given time and the embezzled amount, if recovered thereafter, shall obviously go to the State treasury---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Petitioner in person. Waseem Majeed Malik, Additional Advocate General, Punjab and Ameer Muhammad Khan, Director General, Directorate of District Judiciary for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th December, 2023. Judgment Shahid Jamil Khan, J .--- Petitioner, in person, is aggrieved of not refunding an amount, which was deposited in compliance of Court's order as remaining consideration. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed initially but he failed before Lahore High Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan. On dismissal of petitioner's claim in the suit, the Apex Court upheld the direction for returning the earnest amount to the petitioner with profit at Bank rate. In compliance of the direction a cheque of Rs.10,50,000/- was issued, but was fraudulently encashed/withdrawn by the then Civil Nazar, Rana Ishtiaq Ahmad, who was dismissed from service on 15.09.2010 and died in the year 2011. The petitioner kept pursuing for return of the amount and eventually got order dated 27.07.2021 from the Civil Court, operative part of which is reproduced hereunder:- "2. As per office report the Treasury Officer, Lahore submitted a list of amounts withdrawn by Rana Ishtiaq Ahmad/Ex-Civil Nazar, Civil Courts, Lahore in which the amount of petitioner/Sheikh Akhtar Aziz is mentioned at serial No.25 (copy of list enclosed). The amount deposited by petitioner i.e. Rs.10,50,000/- through challan form No.32-A dated 10.05.2007 was withdrawn by Rana Ishtiaq Ahmad/Ex Civil Nazar, Civil Courts, Lahore on 28.07.2007. A letter of request bearing No.1340 dated 30.10.2019 has already been issued to Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore by my learned Predecessor Mr. Waqar Mansoor Baryar, Senior Civil Judge (Civil Division), Lahore with the request that the embezzlement committed by the aforesaid official i.e. Ex-Civil Nazar is loss to public exchequer, which is liable to be remedied by the Provincial Govt. through allocation of special funds for its onward disbursement to the aggrieved person. 3. Hence, petition stands disposed of. The petitioner be intimated accordingly. Office is directed to place the file on record." [Emphasis supplied] 2. The petitioner argued that deposit of amount in the treasury, on Court's direction, is undisputed as is reflecting from the order, ibid, and was fraudulently withdrawn by the Ex Civil Nazar. He contended that petitioner had no role or concern with the fraud in question, therefore, amount is required to be returned to the petitioner after dismissal of suit for specific performance without any delay, hence this petition. 3. Learned AAG submitted that the matter has to be referred to Administrative Committee of Lahore High Court, Lahore. He produced report dated 29.03.2023 and submits that similar matter was referred by Human Rights Commission of August Supreme Court of Pakistan to Administrative Committee of Lahore High Court. Government of Punjab was directed for payment through the District and Sessions Judge, Lahore. Relevant paragraphs from the report are reproduced:- "Thereafter, matter was placed before Administration Committee of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and following order was received vide letter No. 8207/DDJ/MNT/Ref 14/18 dated 27.04.2019, of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore "In adherence to the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan dated 03.05.2018 and 28.12.2018 passed in HRC Nos. 15468 P/2018 and 69570-P/2018 respectively, it was unanimously resolved that the Government of the Punjab be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 13.1 million to the legal heirs of the case through the concerned District and Sessions Judge after thorough verification. The said amount was deposited in Treasury in a Suit for Specific Performance and was withdrawn fraudulently. The Government may be informed that this may not be treated as precedent in future in any case." Thereafter, budget of Rs. 13.1 million (13100000/-) was allocated for payment to applicant by Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore vide letter No. 7294 dated 19.06.2021 (copy attached) and same was released in favour of Mst. Nabeela Saleem widow of Saleem Shahid, vide this office order bearing Endst No. 01/Others (Grant in Aid) dated 09.06.2021 Copies of relevant documents are attached." [Emphasis supplied] 4. To verify facts of this case, a report was sought from Directorate of District Judiciary ("DDJ"), The D.G of DDJ appeared and explained the procedure adopted, earlier, for disbursement of amount to similarly placed person. He endorsed the facts of petitioner's case as recorded in order dated 27.07.2021, however, opposed the petition to the extent of any direction to the Administrative Committee, placing reliance on judgment Gul Taiz Khan Marwat v. The Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 391). On Court's query, he did not deny that as per report by concerned Civil Judge, recorded in order dated 27.07.2021, petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment and relief as was given to Mst. Nabeela Saleem in previous case on direction by the Administrative Committee. He, nevertheless, submits that the earlier direction or decision by Administrative Committee is not applicable to petitioner's case. On another query, regarding responsibility to return the amount, he apprised that Civil Courts are fully under control of the Lahore High Court, but regarding financial matters it is dependent on the Provincial Government. He explained that salaries of the staff of Civil Courts are dealt with by Accountant General Punjab. Similarly, stamp duties and court fees collected through Civil Courts are deposited in State Treasury. The amount in question was also deposited in State Treasury on Court's order, which was fraudulently withdrawn by the Ex-Civil Nazir, therefore, the amount is required to be returned by the Government of Punjab. 5. Heard. Record perused. 6. August Supreme Court dealt with Nabeela Saleem's case on administrative side and referred it to the Administrative Committee of Lahore High Court. The direction by the Administrative Committee to the Provincial Government was also on administrative side. However, the procedure adopted for verification through District and Sessions Judge, discloses a fair and transparent procedure. The report, from District and Sessions Judge, confirming embezzlement of the amount and absence of any involvement by the claimant (Mst. Nabeela Saleem) was the basis for direction to Provincial Government for payment of the embezzled amount, which was paid accordingly, without any objection. It fortifies the stance of the DG that Provincial Government is liable to pay the embezzled amount, under the facts and circumstances. 7. In this case, the presiding judicial officers of the Civil Court have confirmed embezzlement of the amount in question and zero involvement of the petitioner. Despite observing that Provincial Government is liable to return the amount, the Civil Court has referred the matter to Lahore High Court. 8. In this Court's opinion, if each case of similarly placed person is referred to Administrative Committee of Lahore High Court, it would cause delay in dispensation of justice, as is evident from facts of the case. There are number of instances of similar embezzlement, and the effectees are remediless. There should be a definite procedure for such claims, to be adopted by the Court, which directed for deposit of an amount, during proceedings of a suit, because the fate of such amount has to be decided finally by that Court, during or on conclusion of the proceedings. It is, therefore, held; if embezzled amount was deposited in treasury on court's direction, the same court, on an application by the claimant shall determine, whether the amount is embezzled, not paid to the party so entitled, and that the claimant has no role, direct or indirect in the fraud. In presence of these findings, the court shall itself direct the Provincial Government for payment of the amount to the entitled person, within given time. The embezzled amount, if recovered thereafter, shall obviously go to the State Treasury. Since, the findings in favour of the petitioner are already there, therefore, Provincial Government is bound to pay amount of Rs.10,50,000/- to the petitioner. The Civil Court shall modify the order dated 27.07.2021 and direct, itself, to Provincial Government, in writing, for payment of the amount to the petitioner and shall ensure that its order is implemented. 9. The petition is allowed to the extent and in the manner noted above. SA/A-11/L Petition allowed.