Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioners, challenged the concurrent decrees of the lower courts that favored the plaintiff, Sher Afzal, in a civil suit. The plaintiff claimed that his sister never married, and the entry in the mutation was incorrect. The Court considered the Revenue records and other evidence presented during the proceedings. The Revenue records showed the property devolving upon Sarmast Khan through the mutation in question, and the entries in the records were presumptive evidence of title, shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff to challenge their correctness. The plaintiff's evidence, including the testimony of his attorney and some documentary evidence, was not sufficient to rebut the long-standing Revenue record. The Court also emphasized the testimony of a witness, DW-2, who was related to the plaintiff but testified in favor of the defendant, affirming the marriage between Mst. Mafia and Sarmast Khan. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that Mst. Mafia was not married to Sarmast Khan, and therefore, the mutation was correctly attested. The plaintiff's suit was filed with considerable delay, and as a result, it was deemed time-barred. The Court set aside the decrees of the lower courts and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

Summary: Auction of Evacuee Trust Property.

Summary: (a) An accused convicted on the basis of plead guilty cannot appeal against his conviction and his appeal can only be considered to the extent of legality and magnitude of the resultant sentence, but the High Court, while dealing with such an appeal, may also look into legality of the conviction under the powers vested in it by section 439 Cr.P.C.

Summary: (a) An FIR lodged on report of an accused cannot be considered as evidence by itself, unless its maker cloth it with such a status by recording his confession according to law, or owns it during trial of the case.

Summary: Constitutional Petition.Held: (i) There are no two opinions that the powers conferred on the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are not judicial, rather these are ministerial and while dealing with applications under Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C, he can issue directions to the concerned police officials for observance of all legal and requisite formalities but he cannot step into the shoes of the investigating agency, which isindependent in all respect.(ii) A Justice of the Peace or an ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan performs functions which art administrative and ministerial in nature and not judicial in character. Even the superior Courts of Pakistan having constitutional, legal, supervisory and inherent judicial jurisdiction have consistently and consciously refrained from directly interfering with investigation of a criminal case by the police and, therefore, it is but obvious that Justices of the Peace or ex-officio Justices of the Peace possessing only administrative and ministerial powers should be twice shy of such direct interference.(The writ petition was dismissed in the circumstances)

Summary: Article 199clause (1) (b) &(i) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.i.Production of minors before the Court.ii.Custody of minors to real mother.iii.Minors in custody of uncle even in custody of their grandmother is unlawful in absence of Court order.iv.Concurrence of jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge under Section 491 Cr.PC and Habeas Corpus writ before the High Court. While the Habeas Corpus petition has been properly presented, the minors were given in custody of their mother in preference of their uncle or grandmother.v.Mst. Nazish Jehangiri (paternal aunt)/ counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 demeanor has been condemned as she has become furor and degrading while her conduct is highly deplorable by unbecoming of a sagacious lawyer while coming to know the grant of custody to the mother opposed by her.

Summary: The petitioner had filed a suit seeking the cancellation of a sale deed, executed in favor of the respondent/defendant No.1. The petitioner claimed ownership of 55-Kanals of land in Khewat No. 373, Khatoni Number 489, located in village Karbath, Lahore Cantt, based on a sale deed and mutation No. 1 sanctioned. The respondent No.1/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C for the rejection of the plaintiff's suit. The trial court dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge accepted the revision petition filed by the respondent No.1/defendant. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the judgment, relying on legal precedents, including cases such as S.M. Sham Ahmad Zaidi through Legal Heirs Vs Malik Hassan Ali Khan (2002 SCMR 338) and Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd Vs Mian Abdul Latif and others (PLD 2008 SC 371). The petitioner's argument centered on the contention that, while applying Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court should confine itself to the averments in the plaint and not go beyond its contents. However, the court, after considering the arguments and examining the record, found that the defendant/respondent No.1 had purchased land through a sale deed in 2003, but the revenue authorities failed to enter/sanction the purchase in the revenue record through mutation. The court noted that the mutation is not a document of title but for fiscal purposes only. It further revealed that the sellers and the present buyer/plaintiff had fraudulently obtained the "Fard" of the sold land and executed a sale deed in 2014, mutating it through collusion with the revenue authorities. The court found the petitioner's claim of purchasing the land with possession to be implausible, as the respondent No.1 had already taken possession in 2003, carried out development works, and allotted plots to various individuals. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the revisional court, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the judgment and decree. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rejection of the plaintiff's suit was affirmed, with the court having relied on the available legal precedents and the factual details presented in the record.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Rafaqat Ali alias Phakoo, along with three co-accused, faced charges in connection with a case originating from FIR, registered under Sections 302, 34 PPC at Police Station: Qila Dedar Singh, District: Gujranwala. The prosecution's narrative revolved around a family dispute between the deceased, Muhammad Boota, and his second wife, Mst. Sarwat Begum, allegedly involving illicit relations with Rafaqat Ali alias Phakoo. The judgment highlighted various deficiencies in the prosecution's case, including the lack of credible evidence supporting the alleged illicit relations, the absence of valid reasons for the presence of key witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence, and inconsistencies in the testimonies. Justice Farooq Haider underscored the unexplained delay in conducting the postmortem examination, casting doubt on the credibility of the entire case. Notably, the judgment referenced legal precedents, including the cases of "Haroon Shafique versus The State and others," "Mian Sohail Ahmad and others(2019 SCMR 956),versus The State and others," and "Muhammad Yasin and another versus The State through P.G. Punjab and others,"(2020 SCMR 1237)to emphasize the importance of timely registration of cases and the foundational role of the first information report (FIR) in criminal proceedings. The court raised concerned about the reliability of eyewitness accounts and noted the absence of a valid motive. It scrutinized the recovery of a pistol from the appellant, deeming it inconsequential due to a lack of matching evidence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The order of acquittal for Sarwat Begum was upheld.

Summary: Effect of failure to follow mandate of Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----This Regular Second Appeal challenged a judgment and decree that dismissed the appellant's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision, stating that the execution of the agreement was not adequately proved. The appellant, claiming the agreement's execution through witnesses and an alleged affidavit by the deceased Karim Baksh, contends that the Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit despite overwhelming evidence. The judge highlighted a crucial omission during cross-examination, where Karim Baksh was not confronted with the contents of the affidavit, creating a fatal flaw under Article 140 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Emphasizing the mandatory nature of such confrontation, legal precedents are cited. The consideration price for the land becomes contentious due to inconsistencies in different documents. The judge noted the lack of clarity and resolution regarding the agreed consideration price. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the appellant failed to prove the agreement's execution in accordance with the law. The reliance on the alleged affidavit is dismissed due to the failure to confront Karim Baksh during cross-examination. The judge upheld the Appellate Court's decision, stating that the findings reflect a correct reading of the evidence. The Second Appeal fails, and no costs are awarded.