Summary: Background:Petitioners, the Province of Punjab through the Deputy Commissioner and others, constructed a road on nine marlas of land without compensating the landowner or acquiring it under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.The landowner filed a suit in 1997 seeking compensation for the land. The suit was initially dismissed, but the appellate court allowed the appeal on September 19, 2009, upholding the judgment.---Issues:Whether the construction of the road without compensating the landowner or acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act constitutes a violation of the landowner's rights under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.Whether the petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners constitutes frivolous litigation, given the lack of legal merit and disregard for constitutional provisions.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the construction of the road without compensating the landowner violated the landowner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution.The Court deemed the petition for leave to appeal as frivolous litigation, criticizing the petitioners, who are government officials paid by taxpayers, for challenging a matter of little financial significance contrary to constitutional provisions.Emphasizing the obligations of the Government of Punjab and its employees to serve the people and abide by the Constitution and law, the Court directed the Government of Punjab to:Pay requisite compensation to the landowners within thirty days from the receipt of the order.Pay one million rupees as costs to the landowners.The petition for leave to appeal was declined, and the petition was dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.Land Acquisition Act, 1894.---Quote:Frivolous litigation by those whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers of this country is unfortunate.

Summary: Background:Civil Petition No. 946 of 2022 was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an order dated 21.12.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 1325 of 2016. The petitioners opposed a partition application submitted by the respondents under section 135 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, leading to litigation.---Issues:Whether the petitioners' objection to the partition application was valid.Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was justified.Whether the costs imposed by the High Court were paid or recovered.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, consisting of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Chief Justice, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, and Justice Athar Minallah, dismissed the petition after considering the arguments and evidence presented. The Court found that the petitioners' objections to the partition lacked valid grounds and resulted in unnecessary litigation. Additionally, the Court noted the failure of revenue authorities to implement the orders and recover costs imposed by the High Court, undermining the rule of law. As no illegality was found in the impugned order, the Court declined to grant leave and imposed costs of one million rupees on the petitioners, in addition to the costs imposed by the High Court. The costs were to be deposited with the concerned revenue officer for distribution to the respondents, and failure to comply within 30 days would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.----Quote:Costs of one million rupees imposed as case was utterly frivolous and has consumed 14 years.

Summary: Sentence Reduction---Background: The appellant faced charges under sections 9(C) and 15 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2001 (CNSA). On June 30, 2020, police officials, acting on an intelligence report, arrested the appellant at Sharda Bazar with 1200 grams of chars. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200,000. The High Court upheld this decision. The appellant challenged this judgment in the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the violation of section 21 of the CNSA renders the entire trial vitiated. 2- Whether the provisions of Section 103 of the Cr.PC have been violated, and if so, what are the consequences. 3- Whether the delayed submission of the parcel to the Chemical Examiner, spanning 23 days, is detrimental to the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Violation of Section 21 of CNSA: Section 21 mandates that only an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector can arrest under CNSA. However, in urgent situations where a lower-ranking officer makes an arrest, this does not automatically invalidate the trial. The court concluded that such procedural irregularities are curable under section 537 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the violation of Section 21 did not vitiate the trial. Violation of Section 103 of Cr.PC: The court noted that Section 103 of Cr.PC, requiring the presence of independent witnesses during searches and arrests, is excluded by Section 25 of CNSA in narcotics cases. Therefore, the lack of independent witnesses did not invalidate the proceedings. Delayed Submission to Chemical Examiner: Although the sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after 23 days, exceeding the 72-hour requirement under Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, the court deemed this as a mitigating factor rather than a ground to vitiate the trial. The delay was seen as a curable procedural lapse. The Supreme Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from seven years to five years, considering the procedural irregularities as mitigating circumstances. The fine of Rs. 200,000 remained intact. ----Citations/Precedents: The State vs. Abdali Shah, 2009 SCMR 291 M. Hanif vs. The State, 2003 SCMR 1237 State vs. Bashir, PLD 1997 SC 408 Khursheed Hussain Shah vs. State and another, 2022 SCR 334 Gul Zaman and another vs. The State, 2014 P.Cr.LJ 662 Nasrullah vs. The State, 2011 PCr.LJ 277

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: A written application was submitted to a police station against several individuals by a complainant regarding a dispute over a pathway. The conflict resulted in the fatal shooting of the complainant's brother by one of the accused, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent legal proceedings. The accused individuals pleaded innocence, leading to an appeal for acquittal and a counter-appeal for sentence enhancement, both of which were dismissed by the High Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 34 APC despite alleged contradictions in witness statements and lack of evidence of common intention. 2- Whether the principle of "common intention" under Section 34 APC was correctly applied in this case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the conviction of the appellant under Section 34 APC was justified. The statutory provision of Section 34 APC was analyzed to determine whether multiple individuals acted with a common intention. The court reasoned that for Section 34 APC to apply, there must be evidence of a shared plan or mutual understanding among the accused to commit the criminal act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's common intention and active participation beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction based on Section 34 APC was deemed inappropriate, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. ----Citations/Precedents: Asia Bibi and others vs. Ghazanfar Ali and others [2005 SCR 1] M. Yaqub vs. The State and another [2007 SCR 332] Arshad Mahmood vs. Raja M. Asghar and another [2008 SCR 345] Waqas Abid and others vs. Sajid Hussain and others [2020 SCR 520] Muhammad Jamroze vs. Raja M. Sabir and another [2016 SCR 1150] Falak Sher and another vs. The State and another [2016 SCR 1467] Besharat Hussain vs. State and another [2016 SCR 1176] Ali Imran vs. The State [PLD 2006 SC 87] Muhammad Tahir Aziz vs. The State and another [2009 SCR 71] Imam Bux vs. The State [PLD 1983 SC 35] Ahtisham Ali vs. The State [PLD 2007 SC 93] Akhtar Khan and others vs. State [PLD 1972 SC 19] Metho vs. State [PLD 1963 Kar. 1] Nazir and others vs. Emperor [49 Cr. L J 271]

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited (Petitioner-Bank), challenged the judgment of the Islamabad High Court dated 06.08.2021. The High Court had dismissed the Petitioner-Bank’s constitutional petition, affirming the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) judgment, which had declared the respondent a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA, 2012). The respondent was employed by the Petitioner-Bank as a cashier in 1996, promoted to OG-III and then to OG-II. He was later dismissed from service in 2008 on charges of misappropriation. After prolonged litigation, the NIRC ruled in favor of the respondent, reinstating him and awarding him costs. The High Court upheld the decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent qualified as a "workman" under the IRA, 2012, despite his managerial duties. -----2- Whether the evidence presented by the Petitioner-Bank was sufficient to classify the respondent as performing managerial and administrative functions rather than clerical or manual work. -----3- Whether the reliance on limited evidence, such as the respondent’s cashier role, was sufficient to establish his status as a workman. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the NIRC and the High Court. The Court ruled that the respondent did not meet the criteria of a "workman" under the IRA, 2012. It emphasized that merely being unable to hire or fire employees, or lacking power of attorney, does not suffice to classify someone as a workman. The Court held that the respondent's duties were managerial and administrative, citing evidence of his supervisory responsibilities and involvement in financial and operational management. The Court criticized the reliance on limited evidence, noting that the petitioner had produced extensive documentation demonstrating the respondent’s managerial duties. It concluded that the lower courts had failed to properly assess the nature of the respondent’s job, focusing too narrowly on his former role as a cashier.The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The judgments of the NIRC and the High Court were set aside. -----Citations/Precedents: Industrial Relations Act, 2012 – Section 2(xxxiii) definition of "workman" Senior General Manager; Pakistan Railways v. Muhammad Pervaiz (2024 SCMR 581) Bank of Punjab v. Khalid Mahmood (2021 SCMR 656) Soneri Bank v. National Industrial Relations Commission (2020 SCMR 1245)

Summary: Pending

Summary: Discussion: (1) Enlargement of time under Section 148 C.P.C. (2) Exercise of discretion under Section 149 C.P.C. (3) Doctrine of functus officio. (4) Neither the Court should assume jurisdiction not vested in it by law, nor the Court should abdicate jurisdiction so vested in it by law. (5) Presentation of fresh plaint under Order VII, Rule 13, CPC. --- The dispute arose from a Civil Suit for declaration filed by the petitioner in 2007. The respondent No.1/defendant raised objections, including a request for the rejection of the plaint due to non-payment of the requisite court fee. The Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay a court fee by a specified date, failing which the plaint would be deemed rejected. On the due date, without any request, the Trial Court granted the petitioner a last opportunity to deposit the court fee. The respondent No.1 challenged this order through a Revision Petition, leading to the rejection of the plaint.The petitioner argued that the Trial Court's order was in line with the law, emphasizing that the extension of time was justified due to the petitioner's health issues. The respondent No.1 contended that the Trial Court's extension of time was illegal, and the petitioner failed to provide justification for the delay.The High Court, upholding the decision of the Revisional Court, held that the Trial Court's order granting time for court fee payment was conditional, and the petitioner's non-compliance resulted in automatic rejection of the plaint. The High Court ruled that the Trial Court, having become functus officio, had no authority to further extend the time for court fee payment.The Supreme Court, in its judgment, affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of functus officio, stating that once a court passes a valid order and completes its task, its jurisdiction ends. The Court criticized the Trial Court for extending the time without proper consideration, stating that conditional orders leading to automatic rejection of plaints are against the spirit of the law. The judgment also highlighted the petitioner's option to file a fresh suit under Order VII, Rule 13, CPC, after the rejection of the plaint. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Petition and refused leave.