Summary: The choice to initiate and pursue one out of host of available concurrent or co-existent proceedings/actions or remedy from a forum of competent jurisdiction vested with that party but when once choice was exercised and election was made then such party is precluded from launching another proceeding to seek a relief or remedy contrary to what would be claimed and or achieved by adopting other proceeding/action and or remedy, which in legal parlance is recognized as "doctrine of election". 156Writ Petition- Family- Maintenance 7940-19 TANVEER AHMED VS ADJ ETC Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain 06- 11- 2025 2025 LHC 6632

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXI, R.90---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 19---Auction proceedings---Objection petition, filing/ hearing of---Condition precedent to deposit 50% of the sale proceeds ---Scope---Record revealed that in order to execute the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court ,auction was conducted for the sale of mortgaged property---Appellants filed Objection Petition under O. XXI, R. 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C.) against the auction proceedings---The Executing Court directed Appellants to deposit 50% of the sale proceeds as a condition precedent for the Objection Petition to be heard on merits, failing which, the same would be dismissed on said sole ground---Held: Appellants failed to make the required deposit ; consequently, the Objection Petition was dismissed through the impugned order---The condition to deposit the amount under O. XXI, R. 90, C.P.C. is mandatory when the Executing Court specifically requires such deposit and warns of consequences of non-deposit---No illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned Order had been noticed---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Sulaman Bhatti for Appellant. Muhammad Saleem Iqbal for Respondent No.1. Rai Riyasat Ali Khan for Respondent No.2. Proceeded ex parte vide Order dated 15-9-2025 for Respondent 3. Date of hearing: 6th November, 2025.

Summary: The petitioner claimed that he purchased the property from his father and got it directly transferred to the respondent/plaintiff as discharge of the dower obligation within one month after the marriage ceremony, which was disbelieved by the Appellate Court below on the ground that in fact it was a sale between father-in- law and daughter-in-law and the admission of the respondent/plaintiff that the sale mutation is pursuant to dower obligation was a slip of tongue. Held that admission of the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioner had transferred the dower property through sale mutation is a slip of tongue is untenable inasmuch as cross- examination is a process through which truth is elicited and contradictions are tested, therefore, admission made therein cannot be termed as an inadvertent or mistaken utterance otherwise the purpose of cross-examination will become meaningless. 157Crl. Appeal- Against Conviction- Others 1101-25 SYED BASHARAT HUSSAIN SHAH VS STATE ETC Mr. Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan 06- 11- 2025 2025 LHC 6527

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss.122(9), 177(1), 214-C & Second Schedule, Part IV, Clause 72B---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Petitioner / taxpayer assailed notice selecting its case for audit---Validity---Notice under S. 177(6) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was issued on 20-05-2017, as the audit was to be conducted within the financial year---Completion of audit lingered due to failing of petitioner/taxpayer to convey concerns, as required under S. 177(6) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---No concerns were raised to the audit except a plea that it should be completed by 30-06-2017---No such construction could be attributed to S.177(6) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which manifested and envisaged that concerns were invited on audit report---Taxpayer had no objections regarding conduct of audit and preparation of report thereby---Proceedings for audit concluded for all intent and purposes, and stage to amend assessment of the latest tax year had triggered and authorities issued notice under Ss. 122(9) & 111(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---No objection was raised by petitioner / taxpayer that the notice was beyond limitation provided in S.122 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Petitioner / taxpayer failed to explain as to why response to notice dated 17-09-2021 was not filed and instead Constitutional petition was instituted---High Court in exercise of Constitution jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter as there was no jurisdictional defect in issuance of notice dated 17-09-2021 and petitioner/taxpayer lacked cooperation / facilitation, to raise concerns to the audit report---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Sialkot and others v. Messrs Allah Din Steel and Rolling Mills and others 2018 SCMR 1328; Messrs SKF Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary (Law and Justice Division) and others 2024 PTD 716; The Collector of Sales Tax, Gujranwala and others v. Messrs Super Asia Mohammad Din and Sons and others 2017 SCMR 1427; Abdul Ghani v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2019 PTD 764 and Nagina Silk Milk, Lyallpur v. The Income Tax Officer, A-ward Lyallpur and others PLD 1963 SC 322 distinguished. Zahid Imran Gondal and Muhammad Junaid for Petitioner. Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan. Malik Muhammad Shahzad Awan for Respondents.

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25A & 25D---Revision of value determined sought---Subsequent Value Ruling, issuance of---Applicability---Importer not being part of revision proceedings---Petitioner/ Importer sought re-assessment of the into-bonded consignments of the petitioner and subsequent release of the same---Consignment of the petitioner was assessed vide Assessment Order dated 16.05.2025 under Valuation Ruling No. 1948/2025 dated 06.01.2025 while the noted Valuation Ruling (1948/2025), being the subject matter of Revision Petitions' preferred by various importers, excluding the petitioner, under S. 25D of the Customs Act 1969 (‘ the Act 1969’) before the Directorate of Customs Valuation subsequently came before the Customs Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) and ultimately, a fresh Valuation Ruling No.2008/2005 dated 14.07.2025 was issued, categorically revising the earlier / noted Valuation Ruling (1948/2025)---Argument of the department / respondent was that the applicability of the Valuation Rulings was only to the Importers seeking revision---Validity---In the present case, the goods were still lying in the bonded warehouse---The Valuation Rulings were statutory rulings and have the force of law, as once the Director General (Valuation) issues a ruling the same has to be duly notified, under the Customs General Orders, 2002---Thus, the arguments of the Respondent were misconceived in respect of the applicability of the Valuation Rulings only to the Importers seeking revision---Notified ruling under S. 25-A of the Act 1969 is applicable and binding until revised or rescinded by the competent authority---Once revised, the ruling takes effect from the date when the original/earlier ruling was given, otherwise the same will result in applying a ruling to the importer which is no longer in the field or which the department itself found to be erroneous---Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the revised ruling---Even otherwise, the benefit of any ambiguity or error, relating to the status or the interpretation of a ruling must go to the importer/taxpayer---High Court directed the respondents /Department to re-assess the consignments of the petitioner under Valuation Ruling No. 2008/2025 and release the same in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. The D.G Customs Valuation, Karachi and another v. M/s A.A. Tyre, Karachi, Special Customs Reference Application No. 1926/2023; Collector of Customs v. Wasim Radio 2023 SCMR 1716; Messrs Saghir Co. through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary 2013 PTD 636 and Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs v. Messers Khas Trading Co 2015 PTD 22 ref. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25D & 109---Revision of value determined sought---Subsequent Value Ruling, issuance of---Applicability---Importer not being part of revision proceedings---Petitioner / importer sought re-assessment of the into-bonded consignments of the Petitioner and subsequent release of the same---Consignment of the petitioner was assessed vide Assessment Order dated 16.05.2025 under Valuation Ruling No. 1948/2025 dated 06.01.2025 while the noted Valuation Ruling (1948/2025) being the subject matter of Revision Petitions preferred by various importers, excluding the petitioner, under S. 25D of the Customs Act, 1969, before the Directorate of Customs Valuation subsequently came before the Customs Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), and ultimately, a fresh Valuation Ruling No.2008/2005 dated 14.07.2025 was issued, categorically revising the earlier / noted Valuation Ruling (1948/2025)---Argument of the Department / respondent was that the applicability of the Valuation Rulings was only to the importers seeking revision---Validity---Under S. 109 of the Customs Act , 1969 the Petitioner was entitled to re-assessment of his consignments on the basis of fresh Valuation Ruling as it was only the subsequent Valuation Ruling i.e. 2008/2025 which remained in the field---High Court directed the respondents / Department to re-assess the consignments of the petitioner under Valuation Ruling No. 2008/2025 and release the same in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Global Produce Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and 2 others 1986 CLC 137 ref. Muhammad Adeel Awan for Petitioner. Ms. Mehreen Ibrahim, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent No.1. Sardar Zafar Hussain and Aamir Ali Sheikh for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. Tariq Aziz, Assistant Collector. Date of hearing: 27th October, 2025.

Summary: Sindh Land Revenue Act ( XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 42---Mutation---Amenity plots of Housing Society, sale of---Legality---Registered sale deed---Effect---Bona fide purchase, doctrine of---Scope---The subject plots were earmarked for public amenities-namely, a “Culture Center” and a “Hospital” as per the approved Layout Plan of the Housing Scheme---Record clearly showed that the Builder unlawfully alienated said amenity plots in contravention of the approved plan, which was impermissible under the law and public policy---The land reserved for amenity purposes in a sanctioned housing scheme cannot be converted, sold or utilized for any purpose other than that originally approved by the competent planning authority---Any such transaction was void and conferred no title, even upon a subsequent purchaser---The sale of amenity plots amounted to an illegality; the purchaser may, if advised, seek civil remedy against the Builder for recovery of his consideration, since the sale itself was null and void---The plea of bona fide purchase advanced by the applicant could not override the public interest or the sanctity of the approved layout plan---The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice does not apply when the sale itself is prohibited by law or is in respect of property incapable of private ownership---Thus, the petitioner’ claim could not sustain as it was conclusively established that the sale and corresponding mutation of the amenity plots were unlawful, void ab initio and against the public interest---The petitioner's plea of bona fide purchase holds no legal weight in respect of amenity plots that could not be transferred or owned privately under the governing laws and planning regulations---Both subordinate authorities had passed well-reasoned and justified orders supported by law and factual record---Board of Revenue directed the District Administration and the concerned Director, Town Planning Authority, to inquire about illegal sale of subject amenity-plots and directions issued in present order were to be complied with against the delinquents---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Sagar Soni for the Applicant.

Summary: The direction to the petitioner to alter the date of birth merely on the strength of birth certificate(s) issued almost two decades after the claimed date of birth was legally untenable. The matriculation certificate, issued on the basis of particulars supplied by the respondent herself, constitutes a contemporaneous and conclusive document. Once such particulars have been recorded and certified, the respondent cannot be permitted to turn around and seek alteration of the same through subsequent documents of doubtful probative value. This Court is of the opinion that record maintained/corrected/amended by NADRA qua correction of the date of birth does not bind educational boards, which maintain separate statutory functions. 164Jail Appeal 6763/25 Ayaz Adil Vs The State Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq 31-10- 2025 2025 LHC 8023

Summary: Effect of failing to prove availability of independent advice / counselling to a female, in view of the facts involved. 167Misc. Writ 82278/23 Shaukat Khanum Memorial Trust & 1 other Vs Province of Punjab etc. Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran 29- 10- 2025 2025 LHC 6441 PLD 2026 Lahore 122

Summary: Question of arbitrability of the dispute has to be decided prior to the appointment of Arbitrators. 166Civil Revision 1146062.2439-