Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan, exercising its original jurisdiction, conducted a suo moto action regarding combating the COVID-19 pandemic. The hearing involved various government officials from different provinces and territories of Pakistan, including the Attorney General for Pakistan, Advocates General for provinces, and representatives from health departments.---Issues:The opening of shops and shopping malls during the COVID-19 pandemic.The legality of the decision to close shops and businesses on Saturdays and Sundays.Allocation of resources and government response to the pandemic in comparison to other health issues prevalent in Pakistan.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court noted that shopping malls and shops had been allowed to open in most areas, subject to compliance with standard operating procedures (SOPs) for COVID-19 prevention.Regarding the closure of shops and businesses on Saturdays and Sundays, the court found no rational basis for this distinction and declared it illegal. It directed that businesses should be allowed to operate on all days, subject to SOPs.The court expressed concerns about the allocation of resources and government response to COVID-19 compared to other health issues prevalent in Pakistan. It emphasized the need for a balanced approach and cautioned against the disproportionate allocation of resources to COVID-19 at the expense of other health issues.The court adjourned the hearing.

Summary: Background:The case involves a dispute arising from a sale agreement between the appellants (vendors/defendants) and the respondent (vendee/plaintiff). The respondent filed a suit for declaration and other reliefs when the appellants allegedly failed to perform their part of the contract. The trial court granted a decree in favor of the respondent, but the appellants appealed.---Issues:Competence of an attorney as a witness.Recording of evidence through a commission.Performance of the contract, including payment of the balance amount and delivery of possession of the property.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court determined that an attorney can be considered a competent witness if they possess first-hand information about the case.It concluded that the evidence recorded through a commission was lawful and admissible, as both parties had consented to it.Regarding the performance of the contract, the court found the appellants' cancellation unjustified due to non-disclosure of the property's incomplete status and lack of construction approval.Emphasizing the discretionary nature of specific performance, the court dismissed both appeals, ordering the appellants to pay costs to the respondent for their false and vexatious defense.---Citations/Precedents:Dilshad Begum v. Nisar Akhtar (2012 SCMR 1106)Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Sadiq (2007 SCMR 957)Abdullah Khan v. Nisar Muhammad Khan (PLD 1959 (W.P.) Peshawar 81)Khawaja Feroz v. Muhammad Dawood (PLD 2008 Karachi 239)Badar Rahim v. Hammad Asif Dossani (2009 CLC 459)Iqbal M. Hamza v. Gillette Pakistan Ltd (2011 YLR 277)Hafeez Begum v. Zainab Muhammad Ali (2014 MLD 1000)BBC Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd v. Masud Alam (2018 YLR 363)Muhammad Sharif v. Nabi Bakhsh (2012 SCMR 900)Gulshan Hamid v. Abdul Rehman (2010 SCMR 334)Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam (2015 SCMR 21)Muhammad Abdur Rehman Qureshi v. Sagheer Ahmad (2017 SCMR 1696)Arshad Hussain v. Zenatun Nisa (2017 SCMR 608)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a pre-emption suit before the Civil Judge in Mirpur on July 5, 2007. During the suit's pendency, respondent No. 2 filed an application to amend the written statement, which the trial court disallowed on February 9, 2009. However, the High Court allowed the amendment through a judgment dated June 6, 2011, and directed the amended written statement to be filed by June 30, 2011. The petitioner claimed that the respondent failed to file the amended written statement by the specified date, but the trial court still allowed the filing on May 10, 2012. The petitioner's revision petition against this order was dismissed by the District Judge, Mirpur, on August 20, 2013. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed in limine on December 10, 2019. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in allowing the filing of the amended written statement after the deadline without a formal request for extension. 2- Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was in accordance with the statutory provisions of Order VI, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the need for detailed deliberation on the application of Order VI, Rule 18 of the CPC. The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court's decision to allow the filing of the amended written statement without a formal request for an extension violated statutory provisions. The High Court's observation that the order did not specify closing the right of defense in case of failure to file was also contested. The respondents' counsel argued that the High Court's decision was legally sound and the petitioner's objections were untimely. The Supreme Court noted that the statutory provisions and the legal propositions raised required thorough examination. Therefore, leave to appeal was granted, and the petitioner was required to deposit security of Rs. 1000/- within one month. The court ordered that the status quo be maintained until the disposal of the appeal. ----Citations/Precedents: Order VI, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 2007 YLR 126

Summary: Background: The respondent filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance before the Family Court, Mirpur, which resulted in an ex-parte judgment and decree on May 16, 2018, setting the maintenance allowance at Rs. 10,000 per month. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to set aside the ex-parte judgment, which was dismissed by the trial court on May 23, 2019, on grounds of limitation. An appeal to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court was also dismissed, leading to this petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ex-parte decree was fraudulently obtained by the respondent by providing a wrong address for the petitioner. 2- Whether the application to set aside the ex-parte judgment was rightly dismissed on the grounds of limitation. 3- Whether the petitioner was properly authorized by a special power of attorney to file an appeal before the High Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the need for detailed deliberation on several important legal propositions, including the alleged fraud in obtaining the ex-parte decree and the application of limitation principles. The petitioner argued that the decree was obtained fraudulently by using a wrong address, preventing proper notice, and that the point of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts requiring proof. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the power of attorney did authorize the filing of the appeal. The respondent countered that no fraud occurred, and the application was time-barred. The Supreme Court found that important questions of public importance were raised, warranting further examination in a regular appeal. Leave to appeal was granted, requiring the petitioner to furnish security of Rs. 1,000 within one month, failing which the leave granting order would be rescinded. ----Citations/Precedents: Syed Mehar Ali Shah vs. Syeda Nudrat Bibi [2018 SCR 9] Muhammad Iqbal Khan & another vs. Parveen Shakir [2013 SCR 85]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Gift- -Oral gift-Gift mutation-Fraud-Brothers depriving sisters of their share in inheritance-Sons being beneficiaries of the gift mutation were required by law to prove not only the validity of the mutation but more importantly the oral gift which was the basic transaction which was purportedly implemented through the gift mutation in question-In their written statement and the evidence produced before the Trial Court, the defendants (sons) did not mention the date, time, place or names of the witnesses in whose presence the oral gift was made-Defendants were able to produce only one witness, who claimed to be present when the oral gift was allegedly made-Even said witness was not able to disclose the date, time or venue of the oral gift-Said witness in his cross-examination, admitted that at the time of alleged gift mutation the donor was about 80 years old, and that at the time of attestation of the gift mutation no Patidar was present-Three Courts below had concurrently held that the defendants had failed to prove the oral gift-Further even the validity of the mutation could not be proved on account of failure on the part of the defendants to produce the concerned Tehsildar and other revenue functionaries, who were the most material witnesses-Another defence witness categorically admitted in his evidence that the donor continued to own the property till his death. (b) Fraud- -No person could be allowed to take benefit of his own fraud.

Summary: Summary pending