Summary: Neither the document was produced from proper custody nor the witnesses thereof appeared before the Court, especially when the plaintiff s own witness has not deposed confidently in her favour, then mere age of a document would not be sufficient for entitling respondent No.1 as owner of the property.

Summary: The application of the petitioners, filed under section 33 shall be decided along with application under section 20 in consonance with the first provision of section 33.

Summary: In the case at hand, an application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking permission to redeposit the decretal amount in the court. The applicants had originally initiated a pre-emption suit, leading to a decree by the Senior Civil Judge, which was later overturned on appeal by the District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicants withdrew the amount initially deposited in compliance with the original decree. The High Court eventually accepted the appeal, reinstating the judgment of the trial court. The applicants, now seeking permission to redeposit the withdrawn amount in line with the initial decree, rely on specific legal provisions and court orders to support their request. The court delves into the consequences of withdrawing pre-emption money during the appeal process, referring to Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. This statutory provision mandates the deposit of 1/5th of the probable value of the property or furnishing security at the commencement of pre-emption proceedings. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of these provisions and cites a previous case, "MUHAMMAD LATIF and others vs. ABDUL KARIM and others (1986 MLD 584)," to support its interpretation. Additionally, the court points to the specific order allowing the applicants to withdraw the amount during the appeal, subject to certain conditions. The applicants argue that, while the order allowed withdrawal, no time period for redeposit was specified during the appeal's adjudication. However, the court rejected this argument, maintaining that the withdrawal of pre-emption money during the appeal process results in the dismissal of the suit or appeal under Section 22(5)(a) of the Act. The court concluded that the application for redeposit, presented by the applicants, lacks merit, and dismisses it accordingly.

Summary: Background:The case involves a dispute over the legality of land acquisition and housing development in Sector F-14 and F-15 in Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT). The Senate Committee on Housing and Works recommended allocating Sector F-14 to the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF) for a housing scheme. However, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and FGEHF collaborated on the housing scheme. Notifications were issued under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, and development contracts were awarded to the Frontier Works Organization (FWO). The legality of these actions was challenged in court.---Issues:Whether the land acquisition and related actions in Sector F-14 and F-15 were legal and valid.Whether the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 (CDAO, 1960) had precedence over the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Islamabad.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Islamabad High Court declared the land acquisition and related actions illegal, holding that only the CDA had the authority to acquire land in Islamabad under the CDAO, 1960. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, ruling that the land acquisition process was legally conducted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court emphasized the legislative competence of the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF) and the absence of an overriding clause in the CDAO, 1960. The Court also analyzed constitutional provisions related to property rights and legislative authority, ultimately affirming the legality of the land acquisition and housing development.---Citations/Precedents:Malik Bashir Ahmed v. Federal Government of Pakistan (PLD 2018 Islamabad 68)FGEHF and others v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa and others (PLD 2019 Islamabad 1)Multiline Associate v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423)Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Aslam (1997 SCMR 607)Government of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi (2020 SCMR 1)

Summary: Background:Imtiaz filed a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan against an order passed by the Peshawar High Court. Imtiaz's father succumbed to injuries, and the respondents were arrested after being fugitives for over two years. The trial court dismissed their bail application, but the High Court granted them bail, citing pending determination of certain legal provisions.---Issues:Whether the grant of bail to the respondents by the High Court was justifiable.Whether the respondents deliberately concealed information about the previous petition filed in court.Whether the injuries ascribed to the respondents fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court observed that the respondents had been absconders for over two years, which was a significant aspect overlooked by the High Court. Additionally, the court noted that the respondents' bail application in the second round of litigation did not disclose the earlier petition filed and disposed of by another bench. This omission was deemed a violation of legal principles. The court also found that the reasoning provided by the High Court for granting bail was based on artificial reasoning, especially regarding the applicability of certain sections of the law. Considering these factors, the Supreme Court allowed Imtiaz's petition, converted it into an appeal, and recalled the bail granted to the respondents. The respondents were directed to be taken into custody forthwith.---Citations/Precedents:Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan: Provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.Sections 302/324/337-D PPC: Relevant provisions under which the respondents were booked.Section 497 Cr.PC: Prohibits bail in certain cases.PLD 1986 SC 173 (The State through AG NWFP vs. Zubair and others): Provides guidance on disclosure of previous petitions in court.PLD 2015 SC 66 (Ghulam Qammber Shah vs. Mukhtiar Hussain and others) and 2020 SCMR 937 (Bilal Khan vs. The State through PG Punjab): Precedents regarding bail considerations and tentative assessments.

Summary: Bail denied----Background:The petitioner, Munir Akhtar, was booked under FIR No. 365/06 for an offense under Section 302/34 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) registered at Police Station Darya Khan, District Bhakkar. The crime report alleged that the petitioner murdered Tariq Mehmood and Muhammad Abu Bakar due to a dispute over a marriage. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death, along with a fine. The High Court maintained the compensation but altered the sentence to life imprisonment.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's conviction and sentence are justified.Whether there are grounds to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner argued that the evidence was not properly evaluated, leading to an unjust conviction. However, the Court found that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular account provided by witnesses coincided with medical evidence, and the petitioner's involvement was confirmed during the investigation. The High Court's decision to modify the sentence was deemed appropriate.The Court concluded that there was no legal justification to interfere with the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Principles of "appreciation of evidence" enunciated by superior courts.Legal provisions under Section 173 and 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Precedents regarding the evaluation of evidence and judicial discretion in sentencing.

Summary: Bail denied---Background:The petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, was accused in FIR No. 292/2011, registered under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station Kalurkot, District Bhakkar. The incident involved the petitioner, along with two others, allegedly trespassing onto the complainant's land and causing fatal injuries to Iltaf Hussain. The motive behind the occurrence was a dispute over land.---Issues:Whether the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are justified.Whether there are grounds to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner argued that the evidence was not properly evaluated, especially considering the private complaint filed by the complainant after the investigation declared one of the accused innocent. The petitioner also questioned the acquittal of one co-accused and the benefit of the doubt extended to another.The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the case against the petitioner. The ocular account provided by witnesses aligned with the prosecution's version, and there was no misidentification considering the parties were known to each other. The absence of recovery of the crime weapon and the lack of a report from the Forensic Science Agency were considered, and the death sentence was already converted into life imprisonment as an alternative sentence.The Court noted that the acquittal of one co-accused lacked legal justification and showed restraint due to the absence of a petition filed by the complainant. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Principles of evidence evaluation and the prosecution's burden of proof.Legal provisions under Section 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code.Previous cases related to the extension of benefit of doubt and acquittals.

Summary: Detailed case judgement in Urdu

Summary: (a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)- -S. 31-D-Wilful default-Investigation-Procedure-Reference by Governor State Bank of Pakistan is a very strong indication that a case of wilful default has been made out against defaulters but it is not definitive-National Accountability Bureau under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, inquires and investigates to see if a case of wilful default has been made out and if so only then a reference on account of wilful default under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is filed. (b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)- -Ss. 5(r) & 31-D-Default, 'simple' and 'wilful'-Distinction-Jurisdiction of National Accountability Bureau (NAB)-Scope-When some commercial or business factors are beyond the control of borrower, then such is a case of "simple default"rather than"wilful default"-"Simple default"is not to be proceeded by NAB under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, but instead through usual Banking Court for recovery-Default can be deemed to be"wilful"i.e. deliberate if borrower uses loan for some other purpose rather than his business for which loan has been taken or not using loan properly or judiciously and business collapses due to lack of investment, wastage of loan or poor business management etc, then such is"wilful default" under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. (c) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)- -Ss. 5(r) & 31-D-Wilful default-Appreciation of evidence-Defence evidence, non-giving of-Failure to give reasons to repay loan-Reduction in sentence-Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for committing offence of wilful default and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years along with fine-Validity-Evidence of investigating officer and other evidence on record including oral and documentary evidence, matter was thoroughly and independently investigated by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and was found to be a case of wilful default which justifiably led NAB filing a reference under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, before concerned Trial Court-All prosecution witnesses gave consistent, non-contradictory evidence, at trial, which was reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring-None of the evidence of prosecution was dented during cross examination-Evidence of prosecution witnesses was corroborated by documents exhibited at trial-Accused persons did not put forward any plausible reason as to why they failed to repay loan and did not even join investigation of NAB to justify their position despite they were sent call up notices-Accused persons did not give evidence on oath at trial in order to justify their position-High Court declined to interfere in conviction awarded by Trial Court but reduced sentence of imprisonment from ten years to five years without altering amount of fine imposed-Appeal was dismissed accordingly. The State through Chairman NAB and others v. Muhammad Asif Saigol and others PLD 2016 SC 62; Alamdar Hussain v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others PLD 2017 Lah. 479; Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 and Mian Munir Ahmed v. State 2004 PCr.LJ 2012 ref. Muhammed Juman v. State 2018 SCMR 318 rel. Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investment Agency and others 2017 SCMR 1218 and Intikhab A. Syed v. Chairman NAB 2019 MLD 127 distinguished. Ms. Naheed A. Shahid for Bank Islami Pakistan on Court Notice.

Summary: Summary pending