Summary: Trusts Act (II of 1882)- -Ss. 81 & 82-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54-Suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of money-Breach of trust-Beneficial interests, transfer of-Benami account-Proof-Plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife inter se and the relation ended in separation-Plaintiff claimed to have opened three Bank accounts in the name of defendant (wife) who at the time of leaving his house also took along with her Defence Saving Certificates-Plaintiff sought recovery of money of Defence Saving Certificates-Validity-Defence Saving Certificates were purchased from the income of plaintiff (husband) and defendant (wife) was not joint owner as claimed by her-Defendant was in fact a trustee and plaintiff had proved his case including the motive that in order to meet any eventuality, mishap or exigency, the Defence Saving Certificates were purchased in joint name of plaintiff (husband) and defendant (wife), whereas sister of plaintiff was mentioned as nominee-Defendant (wife) was not authorized to dispose of/sell (encash) the Certificates even before date of maturity, causing losses to plaintiff-Encashing the Defence Saving Certificates along with accruals and transferring entire sale proceeds into her independent Bank account and not in joint Bank accounts maintained by her and plaintiff were sufficient to hold that she was not the joint owner but a trustee and was guilty of breach of trust-Motive for purchasing the Certificates in joint name of plaintiff and defendant with sister of plaintiff as nominee was established-Provisions of Ss. 81 & 82 of Trusts Act, 1882, as judicially interpreted were applicable-High Court directed the defendant (wife) to return amount of Defence Saving Certificates at their face value together with interest-High Court also directed the defendant to return loss amount caused by pre-mature encashing of the Certificates-Suit was decreed accordingly. Ismail Dada Adam Soomar v. Shorat Banoo PLD 1960 (W.P.) Kar. 852 and Major (Retd.) Syed Baqar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Rashida Begum 1992 MLD 2515 rel. Mohammed Bibi and 2 others v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others PLD 1975 Kar. 979; Messrs Shalimar Ltd., Karachi v. Raisuddin Siddiqui and 3 others 1979 CLC 338; Aftab Nasir v. Mst. Fazal Bibi and others PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lah. 550; Mian Imtiaz Ahmad Khan v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1983 FSC 28; Mrs. Aiyasha Koreshi and another v. Hishmatullah, Koreshi and another PLD 1972 Kar. 653; Ghulam Murtaza v. Mst. Asia Bibi and others PLD 2010 SC 569; Manzoor Butt through L.Rs. and 2 others v. Mahmud Sufi and 7 others 2016 CLC 569 and Muhammad Hayat Khan v. The State and another 2014 YLR 385 distinguished. S. Abid Hussain Sherazi for Plaintiffs. Dates of hearing: 16th, 21st August and 7th October, 2019.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O.IX, R.13 & S.96-Ex parte decree, setting aside of-Remedies-Principle of election of remedy-Scope-To get an ex parte decree set aside defendant had two remedies; either by way of filing application under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. or by filing appeal under S.96, C.P.C., and scope of inquiry under both was entirely different-Once a party chose to avail one of two remedies, principle of election would come into play and other remedies against an ex parte decree could not remain available simultaneously-Application, if filed under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. to set aside ex parte decree, then dismissal of such application would not preclude Appellate Court from deciding appeal on merits, but was precluded from adjudication on legality of order of Trial Court to proceed ex parte against defendant-When an application under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. was dismissed, then matter regarding order to proceed ex parte against defendant would be hit by res judicata and could not be reagitated in appeal before Appellate Court-Where an application under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. to set aside ex parte decree was allowed, then appeal filed against such ex parte decree became infructuous-Dismissal of appeal against an ex parte decree accordingly would render an application under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. to set aside such ex parte decree, as non-proceedable and infructuous. Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Limited PLD 2018 SC 828 and Zafar v. Ghulam Muhammad 2005 CLC 525 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. IX, Rr. 6 & 7-Appearance of parties and consequence of non-appearance-Ex parte proceedings in a suit-Re-joining of proceedings by party proceeded against ex parte-Scope-Party, which joined the proceedings, and was subsequently proceeded against ex-parte, could rejoin the proceedings. Azizullah Khan v. Arshad Hussain PLD 1975 Lah. 879 and Col. (Retd.) Nadeem Shafique Raja v. Jamshed Khan Barki 2017 CLC 1512 rel. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. IX, Rr. 6 & 7-Appearance of parties and consequence of non-appearance-Ex parte decree, passing of-Duty and obligation of Trial Court - Maxim "Ex debito justitiae"-Scope-Every court dealing with an ex parte case should take good care to see that plaintiff's case was at least prima facie proved-Mere absence of defendant did not justify presumption that whole of plaintiff's case was true-Fact that defendant was absent and had not joined proceedings did not lessen plaintiff's burden and plaintiff must adduce all evidence which under any circumstances satisfy the court that plaintiff's claim was genuine-Where plaintiff failed to make out a prima face case, defendant was entitled ex debito justitiae to have decree set-aside. Farzand Raza Naqvi v. Muhammad Din 2004 SCMR 400; East and West Steamship Co. v. Queensland Insurance Co. PLD 1963 SC 663; Akhtar Nawaz v. Mrs. Sanjeeda Khatoon 2003 MLD 61 and BASF Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Tanocraft Limited PLD 2003 Kar. 598 rel. Dates of hearing: 5th December, 2019 and 16th April, 2020.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against Judgement & Decree

Summary: Copy of Nikahnama showing therein the said Arif as bridegroom, while the complainant has been shown as bride. The accused/petitioner syed Imtiaz Hussain Shah, Nikah Khawan is shown to be Nikahkhawan of the said alleged Nikah, while the other accused/petitioners namely Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Ashraf are mentioned as witnesses of the said Nikah, therefore, prima-facie section 376 PPc is not applicable to the case of the present accused/petitioners, while the punishment provided for remaining sections of law i.e. 419, 420, 466, 471 PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The validity of said Nikahnama would be seen at the time of trial as at the bail stage only tentative assessment of record is required and deeper appreciation is not permissible.

Summary: While considering the bail application, the Court has only to see that whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Court is not required to conduct a preliminary inquiry/trial but has only to make tentative assessment.Perusal of the bail granting order would transpire that the learned Sessions Judge, while allowing bail to the accused/respondent has considered his plea of alibi. The record shows that the accused/respondent raised his plea through application dated 26.12.2019 wherein he claimed thaton the relevant day, he was present in his office. His application was sent to the department for inquiry and report. However, the investigating officer of the case has not confirmed his plea of alibi. The respondent/accused is directly charged for the murder of deceased Yousaf Khan by makingindiscriminate firing on him. The occurrence was witnessed by the eyewitnesses and the medical reports of the deceased support prosecution version.

Summary: So far as the case of accused/petitioners Doraj, Hussain and Satbar is concerned, though they were attributed the role of aiding the main accused in the commission no offence, however, no overt act was attributed to them by the complainant in the commission of offence. The complainant never mentioned that either of them was armed with any weapon or any Lalkara was raised by them to commit murder of deceased. The question as to whether the accused/petitioners Doraj, Hussain and Satbar were sharing common intention with the co-accused Seraj and Ajdar, can only be answered bythe trial court. At present, tentative assessment of the record shows that no overt act towards commission of offence has been attributed to accused/petitioners Hussain and Satbar and their mere presence on the spot is shown. The allegation of aiding the main accused in commission of offence, also needs further probe. The tentative assessment of the record, however, suggests that there is no eyewitness of said occurrence and the father of deceased lady charged the accused/petitioner Doraj for murder of Mst. Zahib after 10 days of the occurrence i.e. on 28.12.2019. However, at bail stage before the learned trial court, he appeared and expressed his no objection upon release of petitioner Doraj on bail.The alleged occurrence of murder of wife of accused Doraj took place inside the house of the accused and the complainant has charged the accused/petitioner Doraj on the basis of suspicion alone. The motive for the occurrence is yet to be proved during trial. Moreover, the mode and manner of murder of Mst. Zahib is also shrouded in mystery and makes the case to fall within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated in Section 497 (2) Cr.P.C.

Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan, exercising its original jurisdiction, took suo moto action regarding combating the COVID-19 pandemic.Representatives from various government departments and provinces attended the hearing, along with legal counsel.The hearing focused on the steps taken by the respective governments to address the pandemic, including provision of medical facilities, distribution of funds, and operation of industrial units.---Issues:Evaluation of measures taken by the governments to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.Examination of reports submitted by government departments and provinces regarding distribution of funds, provision of medical facilities, and operation of industrial units.Assessment of compliance with labor laws and safety standards in factories, particularly in Karachi.Review of grievances raised by lawyers regarding access to testing facilities and medical assistance.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Acknowledged efforts of healthcare workers and government officials in addressing the pandemic.Emphasized the need for transparency in the distribution of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds.Sought opinions from Islamic scholars regarding the utilization of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds.Directed governments to ensure compliance with labor laws and safety standards in factories.Noted reports from various government departments and provinces and adjourned the hearing for further submissions.---Citations/Precedents:Factories Act, 1934

Summary: Summary pending