Summary: Background: The appellant filed an appeal against an order dismissing his application for an interim injunction in a suit for declaration, cancellation of ownership, and recovery of possession through partition. The appellant and the respondents are real brothers, and the appellant claimed that the properties in question were purchased with funds contributed by all brothers but registered in the name of respondent No. 1. The appellant sought an interim injunction to prevent respondent No. 1 from altering or alienating the properties. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant is entitled to an interim injunction to restrain respondent No. 1 from changing the character or alienating the properties in question. 2- Whether the properties were purchased jointly by the brothers with the funds provided by them and if respondent No. 1 is merely an ostensible/benami owner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the appellant is not entitled to an interim injunction at this stage. The following reasons were provided: The appellant has the burden of proving that the properties were purchased with joint funds and that respondent No. 1 is an ostensible/benami owner. This burden must be discharged through cogent evidence. The appellant needs to demonstrate the motive for the benami transaction, the source of funds, possession of the properties, conduct of the parties regarding the properties, and possession of title documents. The affidavit dated 20.10.2004, relied upon by the appellant, was yet to be produced in evidence and its veracity was yet to be determined. There was no documentation or averment in the suit to substantiate the joint contribution of funds for the purchase of the properties. The superior courts have generally been reluctant to grant interim injunctions in suits seeking declarations of benami ownership. The doctrine of lis pendens adequately protects the appellant during the pendency of the suit. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the trial court was instructed to proceed with the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the appeal judgment. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ali Vs. Mahnga Khan (2004 SCMR 1111) Mst. Haleema Vs. Muhammad Kassam (1999 MLD 2934) Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. Mst. Naseem Khushi (2009 MLD 1031) Khurram Zafar Vs. Mst. Sarah (2021 YLR 91)

Summary: The LHC held that inheritance of a Muslim is to be devolved upon his/her legal heirs as per Shariah irrespective of the custom prevailing at that time. No limitation runs in inheritance matters. The moment a Muslim closes his/her eyes, legal heirs become owners of their respective share which cannot be taken away on mere basis of an entry in the revenue record ---- The crux of the dispute lies in the inheritance of a substantial land parcel owned by Fateh Khan. The respondents posit that certain legal heirs were unjustly excluded in the mutation entries. The trial court, in its deliberations, meticulously framed a series of issues encapsulating the validity of mutations, the entitlement to inheritance, and the jurisdictional scope of the court.The court conducts a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both parties. Key witnesses include Rab Nawaz and Sher Muhammad, who provide divergent perspectives on the inheritance matter.The court refuted the petitioners' objections by emphasizing the clarity in Islamic law regarding the rights of Muslim heirs. The judgment meticulously dissects the objections raised, dismissing the contention that the suit is time-barred. The court asserts that, upon the death of the deceased, legal heirs automatically become absolute owners, and no statute of limitations operates against inheritance matters.In its concluding remarks, the court meticulously affirms the legal soundness of the judgments issued by the lower courts. The judgment elucidates the court's adherence to Islamic legal principles in determining inheritance rights and systematically rebuffs the challenges raised by the petitioners against the findings of the lower courts. Ultimately, both Civil Revisions are dismissed on grounds of lacking merit, solidifying the court's commitment to upholding the principles of Islamic law in matters of inheritance.

Summary: Bail allowed --- The accused who is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence should be released on sufficient security under Section 466, CrPC, as a rule while the order for detaining him in safe custody is to be made only as an exception when there is an apprehension that he would not be properly taken care of or prevented from doing injury to himself or any other person.

Summary: Sub-section-2 of Section-3 provides an appeal to a Bench of two or more Judges of High Court from an order made by a single Judge of that Court under clause-1 of Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, not being an order made under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of that clause. ''To our understanding, it excludes an appeal in relation to a subject summarized in Article199(1)(b)(i), whereas, rest of the "subjects" of Article-199(1) have been subjected to appeal. Subject of dismissal of a claim made under Section-15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is already subjected to appeal under Section-17, but this is not the ''subject'' which could be impugned in any of the lower fora and hence neither appeal nor petition is a remedy. For the purpose of appeal under Law Reforms Ordinance or this appeal in particular wherefrom the impugned order has arisen, out of proceeding under Article-199 from a single Bench, we may sum-up by referring to Appellate side of Sindh Chief Court Rules. Rule-8 confers jurisdiction ordinarily exercised by two Judges of this Court, except otherwise provided by law in particular. Similarly Rule-9 discussed matter to be decided by single Judge of appellate side, not necessarily under Article-199 as there may be some miscellaneous lis etc. Such work (subject) assigned under Rule9 ibid is not the one impugned by the appellant before learned single Judge, hence jurisdiction was not vested and incorrectly exercised ---- The appeal arose from an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, filed by respondent No. 1 in the court of Commissioner for Workmen?s Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, East Division, Karachi. The appellant filed an application for the dismissal of the respondent's claim, but the Commissioner rejected the objections, stating that the matter involved questions of law and fact that required evidence.Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed a Constitution Petition No. S-210/2022, which was heard by a single Judge. The single Judge allowed the parties to submit documentary evidence but observed that the claim of the respondent could be a subject for final arguments after recording evidence.Unsatisfied with this decision, the appellant filed a High Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. However, the judgment pointed out that the order impugned before the single Judge was not one arising from specific sections of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, that allowed for appeal. Therefore, the appeal was deemed misconceived and dismissed.The judgment clarified that the appeal provisions under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance exclude certain subjects, and the specific subject in this case, related to the dismissal of a claim under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was already subject to appeal under Section 17 of the Act. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as misconceived.

Summary: Judgement Regarding Denial of Medical Reimbursement Without Prior Permission ---- Service --- On 7th of November 2023, the Peshawar High Court held that denying the petitioner's medical reimbursement claim, citing Rule 4 (taking prior approval for medical procedure), was unlawful. The court emphasized the importance of immediate medical attention in emergency cases, such as sudden heart attacks, where waiting for prior approval is impractical and risks the patient's life. As a result, the court ordered the respondents to promptly reimburse the medical charges. --- The petitioner, a Pump Operator in the Department of Public Health Engineering, sought reimbursement of medical charges amounting to Rs.4,00,000 incurred during his treatment for a sudden and acute heart problem at Rehman Medical Institute, Peshawar.The petitioner's claim for reimbursement was denied by the Director General, Health Services, citing that it did not comply with Rule 4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Attendance Rules, 2016. The rule pertains to referrals for medical treatment and requires prior approval for cases involving serious or special medical conditions.The court, after considering the medical emergency nature of the petitioner's situation, found the denial unjustified. The petitioner had suffered a sudden heart attack and was rushed to the nearest hospital for emergency treatment, which led to cardiac surgery. The court emphasized that in cases of acute emergencies, the procedural delay in obtaining prior approval for referral to a private hospital could jeopardize a person's life. The rejection of the petitioner's claim was deemed unreasonable, and the court directed the respondents to reimburse the medical charges immediately. The judgment was announced on 07.11.2023, and no costs were awarded.

Summary: Bail granted------ Blasphemy case.

Summary: Background:This civil appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, dated 08.10.2013, which had allowed Writ Petition No. 187-A/2012 filed by the private respondents. The dispute centered around the renaming of village Tambah Maha to Maira Swati Abad by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, along with the subsequent change in the name of Government Middle School Tambah.---Issues:Whether the process followed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in changing the name of the village and the school complied with legal requirements.Whether the failure to invite objections and suggestions from the inhabitants of the village before changing its name constituted a violation of their rights.Whether the delay in challenging the notification and subsequent order should be entertained by the court.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Peshawar High Court, affirming that the notification changing the name of the village and the subsequent order were null and void. The Court emphasized that the process followed by the government did not comply with legal requirements, as it failed to invite objections and suggestions from the inhabitants of the village, as mandated by the relevant rules. Additionally, the Court noted that the delay in challenging the notification should not be entertained, considering the violation of the rights of the public at large. Therefore, the civil appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the High Court was maintained.---Citations/Precedents:Gazette Notification No.AOV/LCB/1-44/85 dated 10.08.1994Para 7.69 of the Land Record ManualKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Councils Naming and Renaming of Public Places Rules, 1994

Summary: (a) Drugs Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act (XXI of 2012)- -Ss. 23, 32 & 36-Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Eighth Schedule, Entry No. 81-Medical Devices Rules, 2017, R. 52-Notification SRO 526(I)/2021, dated 30-04-2021-Notification, vires of-Removal of difficulties clause-Scope-Petitioner, who imported and distributed drugs, was aggrieved of withholding of benefits under Entry 81 of Eighth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990, on the basis of notification SRO 526 (I)/2021, dated 30-04-2021-Plea raised by authorities was that in exercise of powers under S. 23 of Drugs Regulatory Authority Act, 2012 and Medical Devices Rules, 2017, the notification SRO 526(I)/2021, dated 30-04-2021, was issued-Validity-Removal of difficulties clause could only be utilized for a restricted purpose and such provision could not be used to alter the scope of parent law-Rules which were merely subordinate legislation could not override or prevail upon the provisions of parent statute and whenever there was any inconsistency between the rule and statute, the latter must prevail- -All efforts to reconcile inconsistency should be made and provisions of parent statute should prevail, if the conflict was incapable of being resolved-Constitutional petition filed by petitioner company was allowed accordingly. Government of Balochistan v. Shah Muhammad PLD 2023 SC 609; Farrukh Raza Sheikh v. The Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue and others 2022 SCMR 1787; Abbu Hashmi v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2021 Sindh 492; Messrs Pakistan Television Corporation Limited v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal) LTU, Islamabad and others 2019 SCMR 282; Messrs Pakistan Television Corporation Limited v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal), LTU, Islamabad and others 2017 SCMR 1136; Elahi Cotton Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1997 PLDSC 582; Ittefaq Foundry v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 Lah. 121; Johnson and Johson Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2021 Lah. 314; PMDC v. Shahida Islam Medical Complex (Pvt.) Limited 2019 CLC 1761; PLD 2014 SC 389 and PLD 2011 SC 619 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes- -Delegated legislation-Rules made under a statute-Scope-Rules are considered subordinate and delegated legislation deriving authority and legal cover from the provisions of main statute and cannot override the provisions of statute-To determine vires of delegated legislation, Court has to examine as to whether, such delegated legislation is beyond the power granted by enabling legislation and whether such delegated legislation is consistent with and in furtherance of parent statute-Delegated legislation can be struck down if it is repugnant to general purpose of the statute which authorized it or is in conflict with the main statute.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ----O. XX, R. 13---Administration suit---Stranger to proceedings---Benami transaction, claim of---Proof---Appellant filed application for Administration of suit property and respondent/objector joined proceedings and claimed the property to be Benami and that actual owner was his father---Trial Court converted administration petition into a civil suit and objection filed by respondent/objector as written statement---Validity---Contentions of respondent/objector could not be addressed within the framework of an administration petition---Even if there were allegations of Benami ownership, allowing respondent/ objector to file a written statement allowed him to "side-step" the procedure and "frog-leap" the vested rights of legal heirs of deceased owner in their administration proceedings---Essential goal of administration proceedings was to ascertain the extent of deceased individual's estate and ratio within which it was devolved amongst the legal heirs---Simply agitating that there was a Benamdar, did not translate automatically into impleading a stranger in administration matter---Such challenges could not be deemed sufficient to dismiss an administration petition or challenge an administration suit's validity---Respondent/objector could prove his claim before proper forum subject to all just exceptions---Respondent/objector had no right to participate any further in administration proceedings filed by legal heirs of deceased owner---Respondent/objector was at liberty to agitate his right in separate proceedings---Contents of judgment of High Court in Administration petition were confined to that judgment alone and could not be taken as decided/settled case---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Zahid v. Mst. Ghazala Zakir and others PLD 2011 Kar. 83 rel. Saifullah Khan and others v. Mst. Afshan and others PLD 2017 Sindh 324; Muhammad Suleman and others v. Muhammad Ahsan and others 2017 MLD 1867; Khair Muhammad Khaitan and 5 others v. Liaquat Ali G. Kazi and 9 others 2017 CLC Note 172; Shaukat Zaib and 8 others v. Khuram Zaib and 3 others 2018 CLC 970; Suit No.712 of 2001, Order dated 27.03.2017; Noor Muhammad v. Zafar Ali, Suit No.321 of 2007, Order dated 03.12.2019; Muhammad Khalid v. Mst. Mehmooda Khanum and others, Suit No.267 of 1997, Order dated 03.09.2018 and Mst. Shaista Nafees v. Haji Muhammad Zaki and others Suit No.128 of 2017, Order dated 12.02.2019 ref. Asad Ali Khan for Appellant. Wiqas Ahmed Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.