Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
BASHER AHMED (DECEASED) Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDA TION)
Summary: Punjab Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)- -S. 8-Board of Revenue (‘the Board’)-Power of review-Scope-Jurisdiction to review a judicial order is conferred by law-Power to review in Revenue jurisdiction is vested in the Board of Revenue by S. 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957-Suo motu power to review does not vest in the Board of Revenue. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 589 ref. Shaukat Rauf Siddiqui, Additional P.G. Punjab and Sagheer Ahmed Bajwa, Tehsildar Consolidation Officer on Court’s Notice.
MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB Versus State
Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(b)-Qatl-i-amd-Reappraisal of evidence-Default in payment of the money, appeared to have ignited a situation on the fateful day with no previous hostility-During the brawl, comprising of two episodes, both sides confronted each other-Two shotguns, one produced by the complainant and the second, recovered pursuant to a disclosure, spelled out a confrontation in close blank proximity; on the contrary, in scaled site plan inter se distance between the accused and the deceased was shown as 9-1/2 karam, a scenario that did not accommodate autopsy findings of burning surrounding each wound-Locale of fatal shot on the back of the deceased in a configuration where both sides were confronting each other face to face was yet another circumstance intriguing upon the prosecution story-Argument that the situation was acted out to write off the aftermaths of an obvious accidental shot did not appear to be unrealistic-Police official who investigated the case throughout painted a picture altogether different by projecting the accused being alone at the crime scene-Such investigation findings clearly suggested that occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged in the crime report-In the totality of circumstances, prosecution had failed to bring forth "proof beyond doubt"-Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge. Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State.
ABDUL HAMEED KHAN Versus NASRULLAH
Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S. 151-Inherent powers of Court-Scope-Consolidation of suits was prerogative, which was to be exercised on the dictate of the justice to avoid contradictory judgments and for better administration of justice-Though no provision for consolidation of civil suits was provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 but the Court could consolidate different suits to avoid conflict of judgments if the parties in the suits were the same and the cause of action was common-Parties, in the present case, had filed separate suits against each other before the Trial Court about the same property-Admittedly, subject-matter of the two suits, was the same and if the suits would have been adjudicated separately there was likelihood of conflicting judgments subject matter of the suits being the same it was proper in the interest of justice that they (suits) be consolidated-Despite the fact that the two suits were at different stages of adjudication, they should be heard together-No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned orders and the judgments passed by both the Courts below-Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Zahid Zaman Khan v. Khan Afsar PLD 2016 SC 409 and Muhammad Yaqoob v. Behram Khan 2006 SCMR 1262 ref. (b) Administration of justice- -Consolidation of the suits-Consolidation of suits was to be ordered to avoid contradictory judgments and for better administration of justice.
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Population Welfare Department and 2 others vs FARZANA BASHARAT and 2 others
Summary: Summary pending
vs NASRULLAH and others C P No 1146 of 2019 decided on 26th October 2020
Summary: Summary pending
ABID ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
Summary: Summary pending
GHULAM ALI MAGSI vs The STATE and 2 others
Summary: Summary pending
Rafaqat Khan VS The State
Summary: Narcotis Appeal, against conviction one year in 9-C CNSA
Amanullah and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Summary: Promotion (Constitution of Committee)---The petitions involved government employees seeking upgradation of their posts from BPS-11 to BPS-15 based on recruitment rules. The controversy arose from an administrative anomaly where Senior Clerks and Sub-Registrars were serving in different pay scales despite being under the administrative control of the same Sub-Registrar. The summary outlined the need for a complete restructuring of the registration hierarchy, considering the upgradation of some posts and the difficulties created by the existing hierarchy. The approved summary emphasized the need to create a service-oriented registration entity and proposed the formation of a committee to provide recommendations for revamping the registration hierarchy and tax collection mechanism. The court observed that the proposed restructuring was viable and beneficial. It outlined general principles for upgradation based on previous judgments by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The court then disposed of the petitions in line with the approved summary, directing the inclusion of the Advocate General Sindh in the proposed committee and instructing the committee to complete the exercise within six months. The court's order concluded the proceedings, and both petitions along with pending applications were disposed of according to the outlined terms.
Latif Ahmad Vs Chief Secretary Punjab etc
Summary: The petitioner, initially appointed as Junior Special Education Teacher and later promoted to Senior Special Education Teacher in the Special Education Department, applied for the position of Headmaster. Despite being selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission and accepting the offer of appointment, the respondents denied issuing the appointment letter, citing the petitioner's alleged failure to provide a medical certificate. The petitioner filed a representation and subsequent appeal, both of which were rejected, leading to the institution of this constitutional petition. The petitioner contended that he was already serving as an Assistant Professor in a university, holding lien in his parent department, and was not required to furnish a fresh medical certificate for the new appointment. The court, in its judgment, scrutinized the relevant rules and circulars, emphasizing that the demand for a new medical certificate was unjustified, as the petitioner was already a government servant. The court finds the act of the respondents to be in breach of the law and declares it illegal, setting aside the order that denied the appointment. The court relies on the SOR.IV(S&GAD)-5-16/84 dated 18th April, 1984, and the Punjab Civil Services (Applications for Posts) Rules, 1987, to establish that the petitioner was exempt from producing a fresh medical certificate for subsequent appointments within the government service. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner should not suffer due to the authorities' oversight or non-compliance with the rules. The petition was allowed.