Summary: ----S. 42---Suit for declaration---Maintainability---Agreement to sell---Suit for declaration cannot be maintained nor can a declaration of title be given on the basis of an agreement to sell. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 27 (b), 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Molding of relief--- Agreement to sell--- Specific performance--- Subsequent purchaser---Respondent/plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of suit property on the basis of agreement to sell executed in his favour---Both the Courts below decreed suit and appeal in favour of respondent/ plaintiff and against petitioners/defendants who were legal heirs of subsequent purchaser of suit property---Validity---Respondent/plaintiff was able to prove execution of agreement to sell, therefore, the suit should have been converted into suit for specific performance and relief could also be accordingly moulded---Agreement to sell was executed on 8-01-2010 and suit was brought by respondent/plaintiff on 17-05-2010, which was within prescribed period of limitation and there was no hindrance in converting form of suit from declaration to that of specific performance and molding the relief from a decree of declaration of title to one for specific performance of agreement to sell---Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/defendants who was subsequent purchaser had sufficient notice of agreement to sell, which was earlier entered and executed between respondent/plaintiff by the owner of suit property---Such agreement could validly be executed against petitioners/ defendants---Mere fact of attestation of subsequent mutation could not be deemed sufficient to defeat agreement to sell---Petitioners/ defendants failed to point out any illegality or irregularity sufficient for setting aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction modified judgments and decrees and converted the relief from declaration and perpetual injunction to one for specific performance of contract---Revision petition was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Yousaf v. Munawar Hussain 2000 SCMR 204 and Javed Iqbal v. Abdul Aziz and another PLD 2006 SC 66 ref. Muhammad Muhazzam Butt and Bisam Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioners. Jan Muhammad Muhammadzai for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Legal age to enter into matrimonial tie. Competence of a witness of tender age to depose.

Summary: ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with Art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants-- -Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maqbool Ahmad and others v. Fazal-i-Haq and others 2012 SCMR 917; Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 791; Fayyaz Hussain and others v. Haji Jan Muhammad and others 2018 SCMR 698; Feroz Khan and others v. Mir Azam and others (C.R. No. 1196-P of 2010); Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid ur Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others 2000 SCMR 974 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court has jurisdiction to mould relief. Syed Shahid Shah for Petitioners Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.

Summary: ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with Art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants-- -Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maqbool Ahmad and others v. Fazal-i-Haq and others 2012 SCMR 917; Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 791; Fayyaz Hussain and others v. Haji Jan Muhammad and others 2018 SCMR 698; Feroz Khan and others v. Mir Azam and others (C.R. No. 1196-P of 2010); Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid ur Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others 2000 SCMR 974 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court have jurisdiction to mould relief. Syed Shahid Shah for Petitioners Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.

Summary: ----Art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with Art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants-- -Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maqbool Ahmad and others v. Fazal-i-Haq and others 2012 SCMR 917; Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 791; Fayyaz Hussain and others v. Haji Jan Muhammad and others 2018 SCMR 698; Feroz Khan and others v. Mir Azam and others (C.R. No. 1196-P of 2010); Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid ur Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Samar Gul and others v. Mohabat Khan and others 2000 SCMR 974 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court have jurisdiction to mould relief. Syed Shahid Shah for Petitioners Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitutional Petition--- ---- Art. 199--- Writ of certiorari---Scope---Petitioners challenged notices issued for alleged encroachment on public property and claimed ownership of land on the basis of entries in past revenue records---Petitioners failed to produce an extract from the latest Jamabandi to substantiate their ownership claims---The disputed land had been acquired for Kanju Township, and litigation over its acquisition had already been adjudicated up to the Supreme Court, which upheld the acquisition---Court held that the writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy and will not be granted where the petitioners have concealed material facts or failed to demonstrate illegality in the impugned decisions---Reliance placed on Darvesh Khan v. Muhammad Sher Khan (1986 SCMR 352) and Rehmatullah v. Mst. Hameeda Begum (1986 SCMR 1561). (b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ---- Ss. 11, 12, 13--- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal---Scope---Petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s decision rejecting their claims over land that had been acquired for a public project---Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977, is limited to determining whether a property is public or not---Petitioners failed to present revenue records proving their ownership, and the Tribunal rightly dismissed their claims without requiring further evidence---Court held that once land is lawfully acquired and ownership transferred to the government, private ownership claims cannot be entertained by the Tribunal---Reliance placed on Muhammad Farid v. Municipal Committee (PLD 1999 SC 41). (c) Civil Procedure--- ---- Previous litigation---Res judicata---Predecessors of the petitioners had challenged the land acquisition process in civil suits, which were dismissed by the trial court, appellate court, High Court, and ultimately by the Supreme Court---Petitioners, being legal heirs, could not re-litigate the matter by filing fresh suits for declaration of ownership, as their claims had already been decided against them in previous proceedings---Court held that re-agitating settled matters is an abuse of process and does not warrant constitutional relief---Reliance placed on Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236). (d) Constitutional Jurisdiction--- ---- Powers of the High Court under Art. 199 vs. revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C.---High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is broader than revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C., but discretionary relief under Art. 199 is only granted when the petitioner has acted in good faith and disclosed all material facts---Petitioners concealed the fact that their predecessors had already lost similar claims in previous litigation, thereby disqualifying themselves from equitable relief under Art. 199---Reliance placed on Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property v. Khuda Yar (PLD 1975 SC 678) and Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-Un-Nisa (2001 SCMR 338). ----Disposition: Petition dismissed---Findings of the Tribunal upheld---Petitioners held to have no ownership claim over the acquired land, and no interference warranted by the High Court. ----Cited Cases: Darvesh Khan v. Muhammad Sher Khan (1986 SCMR 352) Rehmatullah v. Mst. Hameeda Begum (1986 SCMR 1561) Muhammad Farid v. Municipal Committee (PLD 1999 SC 41) Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236) Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property v. Khuda Yar (PLD 1975 SC 678) Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-Un-Nisa (2001 SCMR 338)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 497(1)--- Bail in non-bailable offences---Statutory delay---Applicants sought post-arrest bail on the ground that they had remained incarcerated for more than two years without conclusion of trial---Applicants were previously convicted for life imprisonment, but their case was remanded due to non-compliance with S. 353, Cr.P.C.---Court held that while S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. allows bail for under-trial prisoners after two years of detention, this concession is subject to exceptions where the accused are "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals"---Reliance placed on Mounder and others v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934). (b) Bail--- ---- S. 497(1), Proviso---Hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal---Scope---Applicants were accused of engaging in illegal drug trade and had allegedly attacked the complainant’s nephew on 12.02.2020, followed by the murder of another nephew on 13.02.2020---Court held that the bar under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. was applicable not only to previously convicted offenders but also to those accused of serious offenses involving habitual or violent criminal conduct---Bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of statutory delay where the accused falls within this exception. (c) Criminal Procedure--- ---- Statutory right to bail under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Limits and judicial discretion---Court held that the provision does not provide an absolute right to bail but allows judicial discretion based on the nature of the offense and the criminal history of the accused---Where an accused is found to be a "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal," the Court can deny bail despite prolonged detention---Court emphasized that the applicant's involvement in repeated violent acts, including an alleged vendetta killing, justified the denial of bail. (d) Precedents on bail refusal--- ---- Courts must assess the entire record, including the prosecution’s case, when determining whether an accused falls within the "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal" category---Reliance placed on Gull Khan v. The State (PLD 1986 Karachi 629), where a person "accused of criminal offence or known to be committing crime" was deemed to fall under this exception---Court reaffirmed that prior conviction is not a prerequisite for invoking the exception under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. ----Disposition: Bail application dismissed---Applicants found to fall within the exception to statutory bail under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. ----Cited Cases: Mounder and others v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934) Gull Khan v. The State (PLD 1986 Karachi 629)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 342---Statement of accused---Credibility and evidentiary value---Accused Imtiaz Hussain claimed alibi stating he was in Punjab at the time of the incident, while Abdul Wasay Jokhio claimed no negligence in the escape of accused persons---Court disbelieved their defenses due to lack of supporting evidence, contradictions in statements, and corroboration of the prosecution’s version by a surviving injured police officer. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ---- S. 7---Application of ATA to cases involving escape from custody and murder of police officers---Court held that for an offence to fall within the purview of terrorism under Ghulam Hussain v. State (PLD 2020 SC 61), there must be a clear intent, design, or purpose to create terror---Since the appellant's primary intent was escape from lawful custody and not to create terror, the conviction under ATA was set aside. (c) Criminal Law--- ---- Appreciation of ocular evidence---Conviction based on sole eyewitness testimony---Court reaffirmed that credible and confidence-inspiring testimony of a single eyewitness, particularly an injured witness, can be the sole basis for conviction, provided it aligns with medical and forensic evidence---Reliance placed on Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857) and Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 713). (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872)--- ---- FSL report and recovery of weapon---Forensic examination confirmed that the pistol used in the crime matched the one recovered from the accused in Punjab, which was initially in possession of the negligent police officer---Court held that minor delays in sending the weapon for forensic analysis do not affect the evidentiary value unless signs of tampering are evident---Reliance placed on Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2011 SCMR 1046). (e) Criminal Negligence--- ---- S. 223, P.P.C.---Negligence in allowing escape from lawful custody---Police officer (appellant Jokhio) left his firearm unsecured, which was used by the accused to kill a policeman and escape---Court found his defense contradictory and unconvincing, upholding conviction for negligence. (f) Sentencing--- ---- Death penalty under S. 302(b), P.P.C.---Court upheld the death sentence for Imtiaz Hussain, noting the premeditated nature of the crime, the killing of a police officer, and the gravity of undermining law enforcement---No mitigating circumstances were found to justify sentence reduction. ----Disposition: Appeal of Imtiaz Hussain dismissed; death sentence and other convictions upheld except under ATA. Appeal of Abdul Wasay Jokhio dismissed; conviction and sentence for negligence upheld. Confirmation reference answered in the affirmative. ----Cited Cases: Ghulam Hussain v. State (PLD 2020 SC 61) Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857) Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 713) Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2011 SCMR 1046)