Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O.XLI, R.27---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of fact---Suit for declaration regarding inheritance rights---Petitioners, as legal heirs of Abdul Hameed Khan, challenged gift mutation No.1375 dated 08.10.1925, transferring the estate of Abdul Karim Khan solely to one son, Muhammad Nawaz Khan, claiming it to be fraudulent---Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit and appeal, citing lack of locus standi, estoppel, and limitation. Held, revisional jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts unless gross misreading of evidence or violation of law is evident---Petition dismissed. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- ----S.3---Law of limitation---Inheritance rights---Claim filed 34 years after the death of Muhammad Nawaz Khan and 74 years after the gift mutation was sanctioned---Petitioners contended that the claim involved inheritance and thus limitation was not applicable. Held, limitation applies to stale claims unless expressly relaxed under the Limitation Act---Reliance placed on "Umer Baz Khan through L.Hrs v. Syed Jehanzeb and others" (PLD 2013 SC 268). (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)---- ----S.101---Burden of proof---Inheritance claim---Petitioners' contention that Abdul Karim Khan died prior to the impugned mutation lacked evidentiary support---Courts held petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the fraudulent nature of the mutation and the timing of the death of Abdul Karim Khan. (d) Estoppel and waiver---- ----Proforma defendants proceeded ex parte at the trial stage and joined proceedings at the appellate stage without challenging the ex parte decree or filing an appeal. Held, such conduct constitutes waiver and estoppel against petitioners to challenge the impugned judgment and decree. ----Cited Cases: Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others (2002 SCMR 1330) Mst. Grana through Legal Heirs and others v. Sahib Kamala Bibi and others (PLD 2014 SC 167) Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh and others (2007 SCMR 1446) Umer Baz Khan through L.Hrs v. Syed Jehanzeb and others (PLD 2013 SC 268) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: Crl Revision Against dismissal of Pre -Arrest Bail by Court. Initially Revision was filed. FIR No. 128 -2023 dated 14.03.2023 Offence U/s 11(x), 21(i), ATA, 341, 353, 186, 506, 109, 188, 153, 290 PPC PS Bara Kahu, Islamabad

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: A Shariat petition was filed challenging Section 10(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 (as amended for Punjab). The petitioners argued that these sections, which give discretionary power to Family Courts to attempt reconciliation between conflicting spouses during pre-trial proceedings, are un-Islamic. They contended that reconciliation should be mandatory, citing Ayat 35 of Surah Nisa and relevant Hadiths. ----Issues: Whether Section 10(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and the corresponding section of the Family Courts Act, 1964 (as amended for Punjab), are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, specifically concerning the mandatory nature of reconciliation efforts in family disputes. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners' interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah in relation to Section 10(3) was misconceived. The Court emphasized that while Islam places significant importance on the protection of the family unit and encourages reconciliation in the event of marital disputes, the relevant sections of the Family Courts Act already provide for reconciliation efforts. The Court noted that Ayat 35 of Surah Nisa addresses the responsibility of family members and elders, not the legal obligation of the courts. The Court affirmed that the discretionary power given to Family Courts to attempt reconciliation is consistent with Islamic teachings and does not require amendment. ----Citations/Precedents: Sh. Petition No. 20-I of 1999 titled "Muhammad Zoonnoon Khan Vs. Federal Government of Pakistan & another" Sh. Petition No. 06-I of 2010 titled "Muhammad Shah, etc. Vs. The State"

Summary: It is well established law that the police opinion is not binding upon the Court and Magistrate is not bound to agree with the police report and he is at liberty under the law, either to agree or disagree with the conclusion drawn by the Investigation Officer.

Summary: Supplementary statements of the complainant and witnesses have no legal value and is inadmissible in evidence.

Summary: Tanveer Sarwar petitioned the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to file complaints against members of National and Provincial Assemblies who allegedly failed to disclose Toshakhana gifts in their statements of assets and liabilities. The petitioner argued that such concealment constitutes an offense under the Elections Act, 2017. The petitioner also alleged discrimination, asserting that the ECP initiated proceedings only against Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, the former Prime Minister, who had been convicted.The ECP defended its actions, stating that the complaint against Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi was in response to a reference from the Speaker of the National Assembly, and no such reference was forwarded against other legislators. The court was informed that the petitioner's writ petition was not maintainable as an alternate remedy existed through filing complaints under section 190(2) of the Act.The court examined Section 137 of the Elections Act, which mandates the submission of statements of assets and liabilities by legislators and outlines penalties for false submissions. It noted that the petitioner had an alternate remedy through the complaint process under section 190(2) of the Act.The court emphasized the limitations of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and cited previous judgments to support the dismissal of the writ petition. It concluded that the petition lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed on 29.12.2023 by Justice Raheel Kamran.This judgment underscores the importance of following the prescribed legal procedures, and it highlights the availability of alternate remedies provided by law in addressing grievances related to the Elections Act, 2017.

Summary: Background:This case involves a Civil Petition filed by Aman Ullah against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed his writ petition challenging his termination from United Bank Limited (UBL). Aman Ullah was a former Machine Operator promoted to Officer Grade-II at UBL and was terminated after an inquiry into alleged irregularities under his supervision. His grievance petition was dismissed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) due to a jurisdiction issue, specifically whether he qualified as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA).----Issues:Whether Aman Ullah qualified as a 'workman' under Section 2(xxxiii) of the IRA, thereby allowing him to file a grievance with the NIRC.The appropriateness of his termination based on the managerial and supervisory nature of his duties.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that Aman Ullah did not qualify as a 'workman' under the IRA due to the managerial and supervisory nature of his duties. The judgment emphasized that the determination of an employee's status (whether workman or managerial) hinges more on the nature of the duties performed than on job titles. The Court found that Aman Ullah's responsibilities, which included significant managerial duties such as supervising other employees and handling major financial operations, placed him outside the category of a 'workman'. Thus, his petition was dismissed and leave was refused.----Citations/Precedents:Industrial Relations Act, 2012Abdul Razzaq Vs. Messrs Ihsan Sons Limited and 2 others (1992 PLC 424)General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore, and another v. Bashir A. Malik and Others (PLD 1986 SC 103)National Bank Of Pakistan Vs. Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad and 2 others (1993 SCMR 672)National Bank of Pakistan and another Vs Anwar Shah and others (2015 SCMR 434)Habib Bank Limited (HBL) Vs. Gulzar Khan (2019 SCMR 946)Muslim Commercial Bank Limited (MCB) and others Vs. Muhammad Shahid Mumtaz and another (2011 SCMR 1475)---Quote:Discussion: (1) Section 2 (xxxiii) & Section 33 of Industrial Relations Act 2012. (2) Nomenclature of post is not relevant for determination of status of employee whether he is performing the duties of a worker/workman or manager/supervisor. (3) The burden lies on the employee to prove that he is workman/worker if denied by the employer.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, legal heirs of Alam Deen, filed a constitutional writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. They challenged the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order (PRTO) No.14554 dated 18.05.2001 and the decision of the Custodian Evacuee Property dated 03.04.2019. The land in dispute, originally allotted to Alam Deen in 1950, was partially transferred to the petitioners' father and his brother. However, portions of the land were transferred to respondents Sheikh Hafeez-ur-Rehman and Sheikh Tahir Qayyum under contested circumstances. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Custodian's decision dated 03.04.2019 should be annulled. 2- Whether the petitioners' claim over the disputed land is barred by laches. 3- Whether the proprietary rights transfer orders (PRTO) were issued against the law and facts. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Annulment of Custodian’s Decision: The court held that the petitioners sought declaratory relief requiring detailed inquiry into disputed facts, which is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioners' prayer for annulment of the Custodian's decision was dismissed. --Laches: The court found the petitioners' claim barred by laches. Despite residing in the same vicinity, the petitioners failed to challenge the PRTO for approximately 18 years. Their delayed and belated approach was deemed fatal to their claim. --Proprietary Rights Transfer Orders: The court determined that the findings of fact recorded by the Custodian were supported by the record. The Custodian, as a special tribunal, exercised its jurisdiction appropriately, and the court declined to interfere with its decision. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2023 High Court (AJK) 11: Tentative assessment at the bail stage. PLD 1973 SC 24 - Rahim Shah vs. Chief Election Commission: Conditions for grant of Certiorari. PLJ 2001 SC (AJ&K) 368 - Makhan Khan vs. Custodian: Discretion exercised by the Custodian. 2016 MLD 1382 - Ch. Mohammad Shoukat vs. Custodian: Finality of Custodian’s orders. The court emphasized that a party having a right must act promptly to assert it. Delayed action and implied abandonment or waiver of rights weaken the claimant's position. The constitutional petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Summary: Summary pending