Summary: (b) Balochistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976-------Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 247 (as omitted by 25th Constitutional Amendment Act,2018)---Suit for declaration and injunction---Shariat Court---Jurisdiction---Defendant wasaggrieved of concurrent judgments and decrees passed in favour of plaintiff by Trial Courtand Lower Appellate Court constituted under Balochistan Civil Disputes (ShariatApplication) Regulation, 1976---Validity---Provisions of Balochistan Civil Disputes (ShariatApplication) Regulation, 1976, was promulgated and was extended to tribal area ofBalochistan by exercising powers conferred under Art. 247 of the Constitution, which was nomore part of the Constitution in view of 25th Constitutional amendment---After newlyemerged situation, tribal areas were no more in existence---Neither powers conferred uponthe President of Pakistan, in respect of Federally Administered Tribal Areas nor uponGovernor of Balochistan in respect of Provincially Administered Tribal Areas were availableand such powers could not be exercised anymore---For merged areas High Court had alreadyordered that all litigations pending before Trial Courts and appeals/revisions pending beforeLower Appellate Courts exercising jurisdiction under Balochistan Civil Disputes (ShariatApplication) Regulation, 1976, stood transferred to ordinary civil Courts constituted underBalochistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962---High Court set aside judgment and decree passedby Lower Appellate Court which was no more in existence and had become functus officioand case was remanded for decision of appeal afresh---Revision was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Background:The case concerns an appeal against the judgment dated February 26, 2019, by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The respondent, Amir Abdul Majid, a police constable, was dismissed from service following his nomination as an accused in a homicide case. Despite his acquittal by the trial court on May 30, 2014, and subsequent rejection of his reinstatement attempts by the department, the Tribunal reinstated him, prompting the petitioners to challenge the decision. The petitioners argue that the respondent's acquittal in the criminal trial should not have been the sole basis for his reinstatement.----Issues:Can a civil servant's acquittal in a criminal trial be deemed sufficient grounds for reinstatement despite departmental proceedings?Did the Punjab Service Tribunal err in reinstating the respondent based solely on his criminal acquittal?----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal misdirected itself by reinstating the respondent solely based on his acquittal. It reaffirmed that departmental proceedings and criminal trials have distinct standards and objectives. The Court noted that acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily preclude departmental action if there are valid grounds for considering the civil servant's continued employment unsuitable. However, given the specific circumstances of the case, including the respondent's unblemished career and dubious late nomination in the crime report, the Court decided not to interfere with the Tribunal's decision despite its flawed reasoning. Consequently, the civil petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.----Citations/Precedents:Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan and others vs. Director General (Research), Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab, Lahore and others (2020 SCMR 1708)Liaqat Ali vs. Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secretary Health, Peshawar and others (2011 PLC (CS) 990)Chairman Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another vs. Mumtaz Khan (PLD 2010 SC 695)Government of Pakistan through Secretary m/o Finance and others vs. Asif Ali and others (2007 PLC (CS) 271)Superintendent of Police, D.I. Khan and others vs. Ihsanullah (2007 SCMR 562)Sami Ullah vs. Inspector-General of Police and others (2006 SCMR 554)Ractor Comsats vs. Ghulam Umar Kazi (2006 SCMR 1894)Executive Engineer and others vs. Zahid Sharif (2005 SCMR 824)Khaliq Dad vs. Inspector-General of Police and 2 others (2004 SCMR 192)Arif Ghafoor vs. Managing Director, H.M.C., Texila and others (PLD 2002 SC 13)Mir Nawaz Khan vs. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others (1996 SCMR 315)Talib Hussain vs. Anar Gul Khan and 4 others (1993 SCMR 2177)Mud Izharul Ahsan Qureshi vs. M/S P.I.A.C. (1994 SCMR 1608)Muhammad Nazir vs. The Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh and others (1990 SCMR 1556)Muhammad Tufail vs. Assistant Commissioner/Collector (1989 SCMR 316)Muhammad Saleem vs. Superintendent of Police, Sialkot and another (PLD 1992 SC 369)Muhammad Ayub vs. The Chairman, Electricity Board, WAPDA, Peshawar and another (PLD 1987 SC 195)The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others vs. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134)Begum Shams-un-Nisa vs. Said Akbar Abbasi and another (PLD 1982 SC 413)

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XVII, Rr. 2 & 3 & O. IX-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 39-Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed-Dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution and lack of interest-Effect-Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's view-Validity-Held, that there was distinction between R.2 & R.3 of the O.XVII, C.P.C.; in R. 2 of the said Order, where the suit was adjourned, the parties or any of them failed to appear, the Court could proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes prescribed under O.IX, C.P.C. or could make such order as it thought fit; while under R. 3, when time was granted and any party failed to produce his evidence or to cause the attendance of his witnesses or to perform any other act, which was necessary for further progress of the suit, on default, the Court would proceed to decide the suit forthwith-To attract the procedure laid down under O.XVII, R.3 of the C.P.C.; firstly adjournment must have been on the instance of a party and secondly there must be material on record for the Court to peruse and decide the case-For proceedings under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C., there had to be material to decide the suit forthwith-Trial Court, in the present case, proceeded to decide the suit forthwith, without having any material before it, and thus, had acted in its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity-Trial Court, in the present case, had not even discussed the material available on record and dismissed the suit for lack of interest and non-prosecution, which did not fulfil the requirement of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C.-While Appellate Court decided the case on merit and suit was dismissed on the ground that land-in-question was unsettled one, therefore, the plaintiff had no title-Said judgment of the Appellate Court was not according to the law as there was no provision in the law where the settlement having not been conducted by the concerned state functionaries, the inhabitant(s) of the Unsettled Areas would lose his/their title-High Court set aside the decrees and judgments passed by both the Courts below and remanded the case to the Trial Court with direction to provide two opportunities to the petitioner/plaintiff to produce his evidence-Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Haleem v. H. H. Muhammad Naim PLD 1969 SC 270 and Tanzeem Corporation Gupis/Yasin v. Momin Shah 2016 CLC 1490 ref. (b) Title-Rahim Khan v. Station Commander Station Headquarter Zhob 2019 CLC 114 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)--- ----S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Intra court appeal---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Contract employee---Scope---Appellants, contract employees, challenged the validity of order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby their writ petition was dismissed--- Validity--- Appellants were recruited purely on contract basis; their initial recruitment was not only found to be bogus and illegal but was also found in bare violation of Contract Policy; they had not challenged the order whereby their initial recruitment was declared to be illegal and their contract was not extended after its expiry---Contract employee could not maintain a Constitutional petition---Intra court appeal was dismissed accordingly. ----- The appellants, Sajid Hussain and others, who were contract employees, filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) challenging the decision of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed their writ petition. The appellants sought regularization of their employment, claiming that their initial appointments were legal and that they were entitled to continued employment under certain government notifications. However, their initial recruitment was found to be illegal and in violation of the Contract Policy, 2004. The petitioners did not challenge this finding but instead sought reinstatement through the writ petition. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether contract employees can maintain a constitutional petition for regularization of their employment. ----- 2) Whether the appellants were entitled to reinstatement despite their initial recruitment being declared illegal. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court dismissed the Intra Court Appeal, upholding the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition. The court held: The appellants were contract employees, and their appointments were found to be illegal during a scrutiny process. They did not challenge the declaration of their recruitment as illegal, and their contracts were not extended upon expiry. The court emphasized that contract employees cannot maintain a writ petition seeking reinstatement, as the terms of their employment are governed by their contracts. Citing Ministry of IPC through Secretary and others v. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others (2014 SCMR 1573), the court reiterated that contractual employees, whose services have been terminated in accordance with the terms of their contract, cannot seek reinstatement through constitutional petitions. The court also cited Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCMR 120), which held that contract employees may claim damages for the unexpired period of their service but cannot enforce reinstatement. ----- Citations/Precedents: Ministry of IPC through Secretary and others v. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others (2014 SCMR 1573) Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCMR 120) Outcome: The Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in limine, and the appellants were not entitled to any relief regarding their employment status.

Summary: Petitioner is Islamabad Marriage Hall Association they are aggrieved by decision of NCOC to ban indoor marriages.

Summary: Civil Revision Against order dated: 24.1.2017

Summary: Parties to a judicial proceeding could be allowed to adduce evidence in support of a contention notpleaded by it and the decision of a case could not rest on such evidence. --- no party can beallowed to lead evidence on a fact which has not beenspecifically pleaded nor can any evidence be looked intowhich is outside the scope of pleadings. ---- Application of Legal Principles:The judge initiates the analysis by applying legal principles, notably referencing the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This Act governs the transfer of property in India, and the judge likely considered its provisions to ascertain the validity of the alleged sale.By reviewing the evidence, the judge is likely assessing whether the transaction between the petitioners and respondents aligns with the legal definition of "sale" as stipulated in the Transfer of Property Act. ---- Identification of Inconsistencies:The judge identifies inconsistencies in the petitioners' case, specifically pointing out discrepancies in the evidence related to the details of the alleged sale. This scrutiny is crucial, as it reflects the court's commitment to a meticulous examination of the evidence presented.Inconsistencies in a party's case can undermine its credibility and may contribute to the court's skepticism about the veracity of the claims. --- Emphasis on Lack of Convincing Evidence:The judge emphasizes the importance of convincing evidence, particularly in light of the significant time lapse of over four decades. This underscores the principle that the burden of proof rests on the party making a claim, and the evidence must withstand scrutiny even when a substantial period has elapsed.The extended time frame may have raised questions about the reliability and accuracy of the evidence presented by the petitioners. ---- Consistency Between Pleadings and Evidence:The judge underscores the legal principle that there should be consistency between pleadings and evidence presented during trial. This principle ensures fairness and prevents parties from introducing new or contradictory claims during the course of the litigation.The judge's reference to settled legal precedents suggests a commitment to established rules governing the presentation of evidence in court. ---- Precedent Regarding Revenue Papers:Reference is made to the settled principle that entries in revenue papers favoring possession/cultivation prevail over entries in the column of lagan. This refers to the importance of records reflecting actual possession when determining property rights.This principle suggests that if there is a conflict between different entries in the revenue papers, the court should prioritize those indicating possession or cultivation. ----- Conclusion Upholding Lower Courts' Judgments:The judge concludes by dismissing the civil revision. This implies that the higher court is affirming the decisions of the lower courts and finding no grounds for overturning their judgments.The judge explicitly states that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any misapplication of law or misreading of evidence, indicating a high threshold for challenging lower court decisions