Summary: ----Ss. 43 & 118---Statutory presumption in favour of a negotiable instrument---Scope---Departure from the statutory presumption --- Suit for recovery on the basis of pronote---Promissory note executed under conditional promise---There is an initial statutory presumption that the negotiable instrument is made, drawn, accepted or endorsed for the consideration and in a case to the contrary, the onus is on the person who is denying the consideration to prove the same---However, if the plaintiff presents facts contrary to the stated consideration on the pronote or which militate against the presumption then the presumption is lost/destroyed and the burden of proving the validity shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the pronote was executed by the defendant for consideration---In the instant case, the plaintiff himself pleaded that due to involvement of defendant's son, an FIR No.689/2018 with offences under Ss. 392/411, of P.P.C. was registered against him and the defendant being father of accused executed the disputed pronote and receipt pronote with the clear undertaking/promise to pay an amount of Rs.760,000/- to plaintiff if his son was found involved in the crime, and during the investigation police declared his son guilty---On the refusal to honor his promise the plaintiff was constrained to file suit against the defendant---The defendant completely denied the facts pleaded by the plaintiff---Held: There remained no doubt that the defendant did not receive any consideration for the pronote and receipt and the amount written in these exhibited documents was simply an imaginary figure which was not received by the executor---The alleged negotiable instrument was made or transferred without valid consideration and the negotiable instrument without consideration creates no obligation for the payment between the parties according to S. 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881---Findings of the court below were upheld/confirmed---Regular First Appeal was dismissed in limine. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 23---Lawful objects and considerations---Scope---Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872, also invalidates agreements if their considerations, objects or purposes are illegal, including those that violate public policy---Non-compoundable offenses are regarded as matters of public concern and permitting private agreements to settle such offences would compromise public interest and proper administration of justice-- -No Court of law can countenance or give effect to an agreement which attempts to take administration of law out of hands of the judges and put it in the hands of private individuals---This policy is based on the principle that criminal prosecution in non-compounding offenses cannot be compounded at the free will and choice of the parties which is not a private dispute between them but is one in which society at large is interested and any private agreement by the person ostensibly aggrieved, in return for a reward, to forbear from or withdraw or abandon the prosecution knocks at the root of criminal justice---If such agreements are allowed to be enforced by the courts, the doors will be opened to blackmailing on large scale---Therefore, the agreement to pay consideration for the pronote in the present case being the compounding of non-compoundable criminal charges was void in law---Findings of the court below were upheld/confirmed---Regular First Appeal was dismissed in limine. Peer Amjad Shah Sawar Bodla for Appellant. Date of hearing: 9th October, 2024.

Summary: of 2022 with C.M. No. 1069 of 2022 by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar). (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.123---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 49---Suit for declaration and injunction---Unregistered gift deed---Proof---Failure to take possession- --Concurrent findings of facts by Courts below---Petitioners/plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit property on the basis of gift deed made by their predecessor-in-interest and had assailed mutation of inheritance---Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees---Validity---Gift in question was conditional because possession was not delivered to petitioners/plaintiffs---Donor had retained possession during his lifetime, meaning thereby that one of the ingredientsof a valid gift was missing---When a document creates a future obligation(s) or right(s), it has to be compulsorily registered and when position remains otherwise, such document does not confer any right(s) in view of command of section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882---High Court had rightly construed law on the subject in such regard and when such document, creating future obligation(s) and right(s) was executed, the same, when challenged, was required to be proved by producing two marginal witnesses as per mandate of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Such proof was lacking in the present case as none of petitioners/plaintiffs produced witnesses in witness box for identification of their signature---Concurrent findings of facts recorded by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court were rightly upheld by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 276; Mst. Parveen (deceased) through LRs v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64; Mst. Hayat Bibi and others v. Alamzeb and others 2022 SCMR 13; Islam ud Din (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Noor Jahan (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2016 SCMR 986; Phull Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima 2016 SCMR 1225; Peer Baksh through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others 2016 SCMR 1417; Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar and 2 others 2015 SCMR 1; Ibrahim Kamal v. Mst. Malooka Bibi and others 2012 SCMR 1; Khaliqdad Khan and others v. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon and others 20 10 SCMR 1370; Bilal Hussain Shah and another v. Dilawar Shah PLD 2018 SC 698; Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1986; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others v. Shah Faisal Wahab and others 2023 SCMR 1642; Mst. Tahira Samina and others v. Javed Saeed Tariq and others 2024 SCMR 24; Mst. Saadia v. Mst. Gul Bibi 2016 SCMR 662; Mst. Nagina Begum v. Mst. Tahzim Akhtar and others 2009 SCMR 623; Khalida Idrees and others v. Anas Farooq Chaudhary and others PLD 2018 Lah. 819; Mst. Rasheeda Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others 2008 SCMR 1384; Mst. Shafqat Parveen v. Muhammad Iftikhar Amjad and others 2012 SCMR 1602; Rehmat Noor v. Zulqarnain 2023 SCMR 1645; Syed Ahmad v. Ali Akbar and others 2021 SCMR 743; Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others 2016 SCMR 910; Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another 2018 SCMR 139; Muhammad Shafiq Ullah and others v. Allah Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 763; Saddaruddin (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 642; Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others 2021 SCMR 605; Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 73; Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 S.C. 338; Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd. Karachi v. Ravi Steel Company, Lahore PLD 2020 S.C. 324; Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Sakina Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 1021; Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74; Naveed Akram and others v. Muhammad Anwar 2018 SCMR 1095; Allah Ditta and others v. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and others 2017 SCMR 402; Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 1360; Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 1300; Mst. Brikhna v. Faiz Ullah Khan and others 2020 SCMR 1681; Fazal Ellahi (deceased) through its Legal Heirs v. Mst. Zainab Bibi 2019 SCMR 1930; Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2019 SCMR 567; Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Shafiq and 9 others 2007 SCMR 1773; Haji Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Ahmed and others 2007 SCMR 1961; Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others 2007 SCMR 729; Aurangzeb through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCMR 236; Mst. Janntan and others v. Mst. Taggi through L.Rs. and others PLD 2006 SC 322; Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 SC 688; Muhammad Ihsaq and another v. Mst. Gazala Riaz and 8 others 1997 SCMR 974; Mst. Noor Fatima and another v. Begum Bibi and another 1990 SCMR 629; Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another 2018 SCMR 139; Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74; Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914; Combined Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Wali Bhai and others PLD 2016 SC 730; Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21; Messrs Essa Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and another 2014 SCMR 922; Mohammad Boota (deceased) through L.Rs., and others v. Mst. Fatima daughter of Gohar Ali and others 2023 SCMR 1901; Noor Din (deceased) through LRs v. Pervaiz Akhtar and others 2023 SCMR 1928; Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLD 2022 SC 353; Syed Kausar Ali Shah and others v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah and others 2022 SCMR 1558; Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85; Muhammad Sharif and others v. MCB Bank Limited and others 2021 SCMR 1158; Haji Wajdad v. Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others 2020 SCMR 2046; Shabla and others v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat and others 2020 SCMR 352; Ghulam Farid and another v. Sher Rehman through LRs. 2016 SCMR 862; Syed Mehmood Ali Shah v. Zulfiqar Ali and 5 others PLD 2013 SC 364; Messrs Paramount Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Appellate Tribunal and another 2012 SCMR 1860; Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others v. Allah Bachaya and 18 others 2005 SCMR 1447; Muhammad Zubair and others v. Muhammad Sharif 2005 SCMR 1217; Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212; Khan Muhammad through L.Rs and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others 2017 SCMR 1476; Muhammad Mahmood Shah v. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah and others 2015 SCMR 869; Arshad Khan v. Mst. Resham Jan and others 2005 SCMR 1859; Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman and others PLD 2002 SC 677; Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst. Jamila Jan and others 2014 SCMR 801; Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 and Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb 2024 SCMR 916 rel. (b) Islamic law--- ----Hiba gift---Reason for gifting property---Onus to prove on donee---Donee has to plead and prove as to what were the circumstances and incidents that the propositus, despite being a Muslim, proceeded to deprive his legal heirs/sons and gifted out his property to donee---Proving of such facts is necessary and sine qua non for a valid gift. Manzoor Khan Khalil, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2025.

Summary: of 2022 with C.M. No. 1069 of 2022 by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar). (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.123---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 49---Suit for declaration and injunction---Unregistered gift deed---Proof---Failure to take possession- --Concurrent findings of facts by Courts below---Petitioners/plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit property on the basis of gift deed made by their predecessor-in-interest and had assailed mutation of inheritance---Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees---Validity---Gift in question was conditional because possession was not delivered to petitioners/plaintiffs---Donor had retained possession during his lifetime, meaning thereby that one of the ingredientsof a valid gift was missing---When a document creates a future obligation(s) or right(s), it has to be compulsorily registered and when position remains otherwise, such document does not confer any right(s) in view of command of section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882---High Court had rightly construed law on the subject in such regard and when such document, creating future obligation(s) and right(s) was executed, the same, when challenged, was required to be proved by producing two marginal witnesses as per mandate of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Such proof was lacking in the present case as none of petitioners/plaintiffs produced witnesses in witness box for identification of their signature---Concurrent findings of facts recorded by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court were rightly upheld by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 276; Mst. Parveen (deceased) through LRs v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64; Mst. Hayat Bibi and others v. Alamzeb and others 2022 SCMR 13; Islam ud Din (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Noor Jahan (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2016 SCMR 986; Phull Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima 2016 SCMR 1225; Peer Baksh through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others 2016 SCMR 1417; Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar and 2 others 2015 SCMR 1; Ibrahim Kamal v. Mst. Malooka Bibi and others 2012 SCMR 1; Khaliqdad Khan and others v. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon and others 20 10 SCMR 1370; Bilal Hussain Shah and another v. Dilawar Shah PLD 2018 SC 698; Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1986; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others v. Shah Faisal Wahab and others 2023 SCMR 1642; Mst. Tahira Samina and others v. Javed Saeed Tariq and others 2024 SCMR 24; Mst. Saadia v. Mst. Gul Bibi 2016 SCMR 662; Mst. Nagina Begum v. Mst. Tahzim Akhtar and others 2009 SCMR 623; Khalida Idrees and others v. Anas Farooq Chaudhary and others PLD 2018 Lah. 819; Mst. Rasheeda Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others 2008 SCMR 1384; Mst. Shafqat Parveen v. Muhammad Iftikhar Amjad and others 2012 SCMR 1602; Rehmat Noor v. Zulqarnain 2023 SCMR 1645; Syed Ahmad v. Ali Akbar and others 2021 SCMR 743; Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others 2016 SCMR 910; Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another 2018 SCMR 139; Muhammad Shafiq Ullah and others v. Allah Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 763; Saddaruddin (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 642; Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others 2021 SCMR 605; Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her L.Rs. and others 2021 SCMR 73; Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 S.C. 338; Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd. Karachi v. Ravi Steel Company, Lahore PLD 2020 S.C. 324; Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Sakina Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 1021; Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74; Naveed Akram and others v. Muhammad Anwar 2018 SCMR 1095; Allah Ditta and others v. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and others 2017 SCMR 402; Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 1360; Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 1300; Mst. Brikhna v. Faiz Ullah Khan and others 2020 SCMR 1681; Fazal Ellahi (deceased) through its Legal Heirs v. Mst. Zainab Bibi 2019 SCMR 1930; Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2019 SCMR 567; Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Shafiq and 9 others 2007 SCMR 1773; Haji Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Ahmed and others 2007 SCMR 1961; Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others 2007 SCMR 729; Aurangzeb through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCMR 236; Mst. Janntan and others v. Mst. Taggi through L.Rs. and others PLD 2006 SC 322; Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 SC 688; Muhammad Ihsaq and another v. Mst. Gazala Riaz and 8 others 1997 SCMR 974; Mst. Noor Fatima and another v. Begum Bibi and another 1990 SCMR 629; Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another 2018 SCMR 139; Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74; Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914; Combined Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Wali Bhai and others PLD 2016 SC 730; Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21; Messrs Essa Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and another 2014 SCMR 922; Mohammad Boota (deceased) through L.Rs., and others v. Mst. Fatima daughter of Gohar Ali and others 2023 SCMR 1901; Noor Din (deceased) through LRs v. Pervaiz Akhtar and others 2023 SCMR 1928; Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLD 2022 SC 353; Syed Kausar Ali Shah and others v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah and others 2022 SCMR 1558; Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85; Muhammad Sharif and others v. MCB Bank Limited and others 2021 SCMR 1158; Haji Wajdad v. Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others 2020 SCMR 2046; Shabla and others v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat and others 2020 SCMR 352; Ghulam Farid and another v. Sher Rehman through LRs. 2016 SCMR 862; Syed Mehmood Ali Shah v. Zulfiqar Ali and 5 others PLD 2013 SC 364; Messrs Paramount Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Appellate Tribunal and another 2012 SCMR 1860; Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others v. Allah Bachaya and 18 others 2005 SCMR 1447; Muhammad Zubair and others v. Muhammad Sharif 2005 SCMR 1217; Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212; Khan Muhammad through L.Rs and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others 2017 SCMR 1476; Muhammad Mahmood Shah v. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah and others 2015 SCMR 869; Arshad Khan v. Mst. Resham Jan and others 2005 SCMR 1859; Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman and others PLD 2002 SC 677; Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst. Jamila Jan and others 2014 SCMR 801; Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 and Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb 2024 SCMR 916 rel. (b) Islamic law--- ----Hiba gift---Reason for gifting property---Onus to prove on donee---Donee has to plead and prove as to what were the circumstances and incidents that the propositus, despite being a Muslim, proceeded to deprive his legal heirs/sons and gifted out his property to donee---Proving of such facts is necessary and sine qua non for a valid gift. Manzoor Khan Khalil, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2025.

Summary: ----O. II, R.3---Causes of action, joinder of---Principle---Provision of O. II, R. 3, C.P.C. does not permit joinder of several causes of action where plaintiffs and defendants are not jointly interested, or where some causes of action are against one set of defendants and some against another set of defendants. Abdus Samad Badini v. Political Agent and Returning Officer, District Chaghi 1984 CLC 564 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.II, Rr.3, 6 & O.VII, Rr.11 (d) & 13---Suit for declaration and injunction---Rejection of plaint---Causes of actions, joinder of---Multifarious suits---Scope---Defendants sought rejection of plaint as there were misjoinder of causes of action accrued to each plaintiff---Validity---Provision of O. II, R. 6, C.P.C. is available only when joinder of causes of action is within the limitations imposed by O. II, R. 3, C.P.C. and Court then feels that one or more of the causes of action cannot be conveniently tried or disposed of together---Provision of O. II, R 6, C.P.C. is not intended to say that even if joinder of causes of action is beyond limitations imposed by O. II, R. 3, C.P.C., the Court can nonetheless order separate trials or step into the shoes of plaintiff to remedy the defect by other means, for that would make O. II, R. 3, C.P.C. redundant---High Court rejected the plaint under O. VII, R. 11(d), C.P.C., as joinder of causes of action had gone beyond the provision of O. II, R. 3, C.P.C.---Plaintiffs by virtue of O. VII, R. 13, C.P.C. were free to explore separate suits---Application was allowed accordingly. Umeed Ali v. Government of Sindh PLD 2007 Kar. 224; Mumtaz Khan v. Nawab Khan 2000 SCMR 53; Chandi Prasad Sikaria v. Premlata Nahata 2005 SCC OnLine Cal 281; Premlata Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 818; Aroma Travels Services v. Faisal Al Abdullah Al Faisal Al Saud 2017 YLR 1579; Ghazanfar Ally Effendi v. Arif Effendi 1988 CLC 1425 and Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf 2021 SCMR 1509 rel. Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam, Shehzad Mehmood and Imran Taj for Plaintiffs. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Ayan Mustafa Memon, Ahmed Ali Hussain, Ali T. Ebrahim, Muhammad Shahzeb Siddiqui, Aga Zafar Ahmed, Jazib Ali Shaikh, Kashif Hanif, Muhammad Shahnawaz, Khwaja Aizaz Ahsan, Minahil Malik, Nazia Hanjrah, Darakhshan Jahan, Muhammad Shahbaz, Saif Sohail Younus, Khurram Rashid, Asad Ali Zaidi, Aman Aftab, Ashraf Ali Butt, Rehmat-un-Nisa, Naseema Mangrio, Fahad Khan, Muhammad Imran, Syed Zaeem Hyder and Liaquat Hussain for Defendants. Muhammad Ali Lakhani, Syed Ali Ahmed Zaidi and Choudhry Muhammad Iqbal for Applicants. Khursheed Javed, Deputy Attorney General for Federation of Pakistan. Aley Maqbool Siddiqui, Additional Advocate General, Naushaba Haq Solangi and Imran Khan, Assistant Advocate General for Province of Sindh. Dates of hearing: 23rd August, 5th, 22nd September, 11th October, 7th November, 2022 and Re-hearing on 18th April, 2024.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (XX of 2017), Ss. 2(i) & 3---ADR Mediation Accreditation (Eligibility) Rules, 2023---Mediation Practice Direction (Civil) Rules, 2023 (issued by Islamabad High Court)---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Referring dispute for mediation---Object, purpose and scope---Petitioner was aggrieved of enhancement of maintenance allowance of respondents by High Court---Supreme Court referred the matter for mediation through Accredited Mediator---Held: Mediation is not merely an alternative to litigation; it is a paradigm shift in dispute resolution built on principles of collaboration, confidentiality and party autonomy---Mediation offers a non-adversarial framework that empowers parties to shape outcome of their own disputes, guided by a neutral facilitator rather than through judicial determination---Benefits of mediation are manifold, which reduce costs associated with protracted legal battles, alleviates burden on Courts and ensures quicker resolution of disputes---Confidential nature of mediation protects privacy of parties and its informal setting encourages honest communication and problem-solving---Flexibility of process allows parties to explore creative, interest-based solutions that a Court of law may not be empowered to grant---Supreme Court appreciated benefits of mediation which were remarkably evident in the present case; what years of litigation could not resolve, mediation achieved within weeks---This procedure reinforced the principle that the earlier a dispute was channeled through mediation, the greater the potential for cost and time savings, reduced emotional strain, and restored relationships---Supreme Court recommended the Courts to embrace a pro-mediation ethos, particularly at initial stages of litigation---Judges and lawyers must be sensitized to identify cases fit for mediation and facilitate their referral in a timely manner---Litigants, likewise, should be encouraged to consider mediation and other methods of alternative dispute resolution as a first resort, rather than a last recourse---Supreme Court directed Family Court to draw decree in terms of the settlement agreement---Appeal was disposed of. Barrister Haris Azmat, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ch. Zafar Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via video link (Lahore)) for Respondents Nos.3 and 4. Date of hearing: 6th May, 2025.

Summary: ----S. 17---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 173---Code of conduct---Investigation Report---Duty of Prosecutor---Scope---Prosecutor is required to apply evidential and public interest tests on report submitted under S. 173, Cr.P.C. in order to evaluate evidence and applicability of offences against accused---Case cancellation report is a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., therefore, such tests shall also be applied on it but only if prosecutor does not concur with police opinion so as to recommend the Court that sufficient material is available to proceed with the case---If prosecutor is in agreement with case cancellation report, he is not obliged to apply evidential test or public interest test because case assessment report is written to show availability of evidence and applicability of offence against any or all accused. (b) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006)--- ----S. 9 (7) ---Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 24.7 & 25.57---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 173-- -Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Criminal breach of trust---Closure of case---Words "due consideration to such submission"---Connotation---Petitioner was aggrieved of cancellation report submitted by police with regard to FIR registered against accused---Validity---Words "due consideration to such submission" have strong connotation that Court cannot simply ignore it rather while disagreeing with opinion of prosecutor, it has to give reasons---Administrative opinion or opinion in official capacity does not bind Court to give reasons for disagreement rather it is regulated by discretion of Court to consider it or not consider it---In the present case Trial Court had thought it appropriate not to consider it which could not be termed as an illegality---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as the same was perfect---Petitioner was not non-suited rather had an alternate efficacious remedy of filing of private complaint---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Bahadur and another v. The State and another PLD 1985 SC 62 rel. Muhammad Ishnaq Sahou for Petitioner. Imran Abbas Sahi, Assistant Advocate General with Adnan, SI. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon for Respondent No.11.

Summary: ----Ss. 42 & 54---Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948), S. 2---Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (XXVI of 1937), S. 2---Suit for declaration and injunction---Islamic Law--- Inheritance---Non- Muslim successor-in-interest---Entitlement---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Suit land was owned by a Muslim and one of his sons converted to Qadiani faith---Respondents/plaintiffs assailed mutation of inheritance attested in favour of petitioners/defendants on the plea of change of faith---Suit and appeal were concurrently decided in favour of respondents/ plaintiffs---Validity---Canon of the Quran and Sunnah were applicable to inheritance of estate of deceased Muslim---Non-Muslim was not entitled to inherit any share from the estate of his Muslim relative as successor or predecessor---Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ defendants was Qadiani at the time of incorporation of inheritance mutation whereas his father who was owner of suit land was a Muslim---Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/defendants was not entitled to inherit from the estate of his Muslim father---Trial Court rightly decreed suit of respondents/plaintiffs which decision was lawfully upheld by Lower Appellate Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below, as the petitioners/defendants could not point out any illegality or material irregularity in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below, neither there was any jurisdictional defect---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through LRs v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi 1991 SCMR 2300; Mst. Rehmat and others v. Mst. Zubaida Begum and others 2021 SCMR 1534; The Book of the Shares of Inheritance and Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another 2014 SCMR 1469 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 260 (3)---Declaratory amendment---Effect---Amendment in Art. 260(3) of the Constitution is declaratory and operates retros-pectively. Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others v. Mst. Niamat Bibi and 2 others PLD 1981 Lah. 520 rel. Mian Ghulam Rasool for Petitioners. Muhammad Siddique Shahid and Mian Muhammad Aslam for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th December, 2024.

Summary: ----S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of dowry articles---Family suit filed by the parents of spouse---Locus standi---Husband pleaded that petitioners/parents of his deceased wife had no locus standi to file a family suit for recovery of dowry articles---Validity---Jurisdiction of a Family Court is circumscribed and is restricted to the "matters" mentioned in S. 5, Sched., which shows that it does not empower a Family Court to adjudicate upon a claim of a party qua his/her right of inheritance or Tarka---Petitioners being parents of deceased spouse, who was wife of defendant/respondent, sought share in the dowry articles being Tarka, for which they had approached the Family Court by way of filing a suit for recovery of dowry article and since determination of share in the Tarka of a deceased or its distribution did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, thus, suit was not maintainable and they had no locus standi to approach the Family Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Federation of Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1991 SC 750; Federation of Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1991 SC 731 and Muhammad Javed and another v. Mst. Roshan Jahan PLD 2019 Sindh 1 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts---Jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---In case of concurrent findings of the courts below, scope of the constitutional petition becomes very limited. 2008 YLR 2309 and PLD 2008 Kar. 2005 rel. (c) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Preamble---Object and purpose---Family Courts Act, 1964, has primarily been promulgated for "expeditious settlement" and "disposal of disputes" mentioned in the S. 5, Sched., which primarily cater for the disputes arising out of "marriage", which is between the "spouses" and the "family affairs", which are the outcome of marriage. (d) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Ss. 2(d), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12-A & 17---Family dispute---Disposal---Procedure stated. Niaz Muhammad for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 03rd October, 2024.

Summary: ----Art. 17(2)(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery on the basis of a promissory note---Non-appearance of second attesting witness---Inconsequential---Evidence produced deficient---Defendant filed appeal as the Trial Court decreed the suit---Validity---Only one witness out of the attesting witnesses of the pronote was produced, who admitted, during cross-examination, that appellant/defendant did not sign the pronote in his presence; that loan was not paid in his presence, and that the other witness of promissory note did not come to house of plaintiff/ respondent in his presence at the time when the promissory note was being written---Thus said attesting witness had not supported the stance of respondent/ plaintiff and his depositions were in contradiction to the statement of respondent/plaintiff---The other attesting witness had died so could not be produced in evidence, however, his son, as a witness of the plaintiff/ respondent, identified the signatures of his father on exhibited pronote- --Thus, evidence produced by respondent/plaintiff was not sufficient to hold that the disputed amount had been paid and pronote and receipt had been duly executed---Trial Court while passing the impugned decision had misinterpreted the evidence brought on record and erred in law, hence the same were unsustainable in the eye of law---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment and decree, consequently, respondent's suit was dismissed---Appeal, filed by defendant, was allowed, in circumstances. Gulzar Mehmood Khan v. Abdul Whaeed 2016 CLC 848 and Khawaja Aftab Ahmad v. Qazi Abdul Ali 2016 YLR 1552 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXVII, R. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery on the basis of a promissory note---Family/business relationship between the parties---Proof, absence of---Effect---Defendant filed appeal as the Trial Court decreed the suit---Validity---Respondent/plaintiff was required under the law to establish that there was a relationship between the parties, business or family ties which pondered him to lend such a handsome amount---The contents of the plaint did not reflect such averment, however in cross-examination as a witness, respondent/plaintiff simply stated that appellant/defendant was his relative without further elaborating the nature of relation and family terms, if any, thus in absence of any explicit stance qua relationship, it was not understandable that how respondent/plaintiff gave such a considerable amount to appellant as loan---Hence his claim was not sustainable on this score---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment and decree, consequently, respondent's suit was dismissed---Appeal, filed by defendant, was allowed, in circumstances. Mehr Noor Muhammad v. Nazir Ahmed PLD 2024 SC 45 ref. (c) Stamp Act (II of 1899)--- ----S. 36---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, R. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery on the basis of a promissory note---Insufficient stamp duty---Objection regarding insufficient stamp duty-- -Trial Court admitting a document in evidence---Effect---Defendant filed appeal as the Trial Court decreed the suit---Submission of the appellant/ defendant was that the Trial Court though exhibited the documents yet vowed to address the objection (qua insufficient stamp duty) at the time of final decision, but said objection had not been appropriately addressed by the Court at the time of final decision---Held, that the submission was totally misconceived; firstly in view of S. 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, which provides that once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called into question at any stage of the suit or in proceedings, on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped; and secondly, such objection has to be decided there and then when the document is tendered in evidence---Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, admits the document in evidence and allows the parties to use it in examination and cross-examination, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed---Party challenging the admissibility of the document must be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court---In the present case as the promissory note had been admitted in evidence, the same cannot be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment and decree, consequently, respondent's suit was dismissed---Appeal, filed by defendant, was allowed, in circumstances. Mehr Noor Muhammad v. Nazir Ahmed PLD 2024 SC 45 ref. Malik Mushtaq Ahmad for Appellant. Muhammad Murtaza Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th November, 2024.

Summary: The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Punjab, Lahore Versus JAWWAD S.KHAWAJA and others I.C.A. No. 10/2023 in C.P. No. 26/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10536/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad Versus KARAMAT ALI and others I.C.A. No. 11/2023 in C.P. No. 30/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10537/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 12/2023 in C.P. No. 35/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10538/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 13/2023 in C.P. No. 27/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10539/2023 The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad Versus ZAMAN KHAN VARDAG and others I.C.A. No. 14/2023 in C.P. No. 24/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10540/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad Versus JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA and others I.C.A. No. 15/2023 in C.P. No. 35/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10541/2023 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 16/2023 in C.P. No. 26/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10542/2023 and C.M.A. No. 597/2024 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus KARAMAT ALI and others I.C.A. No. 17/2023 in C.P. No. 24/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10543/2023 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus JAWWAD S.KHAWAJA and others I.C.A. No. 18/2023 in C.P. No. 30/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10544/2023 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 19/2023 in C.P. No. 25/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10545/2023 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus AITZAZ AHSAN and others I.C.A. No. 20/2023 in C.P. No. 25/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10546/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi Versus AITZAZ AHSAN and others I.C.A. No. 21/2023 in C.P. No. 28/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10547/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi Versus JUNAID RAZZAQ and others I.C.A. No. 22/2023 in C.P. No. 25/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10548/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad Versus AITZAZ AHSAN and others I.C.A. No. 23/2023 in C.P. No. 30/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10549/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 24/2023 in C.P. No. 26/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10550/2023 and C.M.A. No. 598/2024 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad Versus KARAMAT ALI and others I.C.A. No. 25/2023 in C.P.28/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10551/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad Versus JUNAID RAZZAQ and others I.C.A. No. 5/2023 in C.P. 24/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10534/2023 (and other connected cases), decided on 7th May, 2025. Per Amin-ud Din Khan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ; Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, JJ. dissenting (a) Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX of 1952)--- ----Ss. 2(1)(d)(i), (ii) & 59(4)---International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 14(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.8(5)---Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (XVII of 2023), S. 5---Intra Court Appeal---Court Martial of civilians, vires of---Matter pertained to occurrence of 09-05-2023, whereby followers of a political party ransacked/attacked military installations situated in cantonment areas in different cities of Pakistan---Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution declared the provisions of sections 2 (1) (d) (i), (ii) & 59(4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect---Validity---Attack on Corps Commander House, Lahore rendered the command dysfunctional for at least 4 to 5 hours creating a highly dangerous situation---All fundamental rights enshrined and envisaged under the Constitution were subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law---Peaceful assembly, association or public demonstration/protest within the bounds and precincts of reasonable restriction imposed by law is not prohibited as long as it is without violating or breaking the law or taking the law in one's hands---Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court restored the provisions of Pakistan Army Act, 1952, that were struck down by means of judgment passed by Supreme Court in original proceedings---Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court sensitized the need of legislative changes, which would also be compliant to the requirements laid down under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) for maintaining and preserving Constitutional and societal norms in existing legal framework---Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court referred the matter to Government/Parliament for considering and making necessary amendments/legislation in Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and allied Rules in order to provide an independent right of appeal in High Court against conviction awarded to persons by Court Martial/Military Courts under the provisions of sections 2(1) (d) (i), (ii) & 59 (4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952---Intra Court Appeal was allowed. [Majority view] Col. (R) Muhammad Akram v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another PLD 2009 FSC 36 and Jurist Foundation v. Federal Government PLD 2020 SC 1 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 10A---Due process of law and fair trial---Right of appeal---Scope---Independent right of appeal before an independent forum is also a basic limb of doctrine of due process and right to a fair trial, as enshrined under Article 10A of the Constitution. Brig. (Retd.) F. B. Ali's case PLD 1975 SC 506; Shahida Zahir Abbasi's case PLD 1996 SC 632 and District Bar Rawalpindi's case PLD 2015 SC 401 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 10A---Due process of law and fair trial---Applicability---Provisions merely accentuating right to a fair trial and due process in any statute and its actual application and proper implementation during trial are two distinct features and situations---If an independent right of appeal is provided in High Court for challenging original order or internal departmental appellate order of conviction, then High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as conferred under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, may examine whether an appeal and fair opportunity to defend the charges was afforded to the convict; whether sufficient evidence was available to substantiate the charges; and whether proper procedure in trial was followed in letter and spirit. Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhter Afghan, JJ. dissenting. [Minority view] (d) Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX of 1952)--- ----Ss. 2(1)(d)(i), (ii) & 59(4)---International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 14 (5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 2A, 8(3)(a), 9, 10, 10A, 19A, 25, 175(3), 227(1) & 245---Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (XVII of 2023), S. 5---Intra Court Appeal---Court Martial of civilians, vires of---Matter pertained to occurrence of 09-05-2023, whereby followers of a political party ransacked/attacked military installations situated in cantonment areas in different cities of Pakistan---Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, declared the provisions of sections 2(1)(d)(i), (ii) & 59(4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect---Validity---The Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ('PAA') is a disciplinary statute, relates to members of the Armed Forces, for the purpose of ensuring the proper discharge of their duties or the maintenance of discipline amongst them, as provided by clause (a) of sub-Article (3) of Article 8 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ('Constitution'), hence, does not offer fundamental rights to persons under the military discipline---To the contrary, clause (d) added to subsection (1) of section 2 of the PAA relates to persons not otherwise subject to the PAA ('Civilians')---It does not relate to members of the Armed Forces, nor serves the aforesaid purpose, as provided by sub-clause (a) of sub-Article (3) of Article 8 of the Constitution, as such, it does not qualify for exemption from fundamental rights, hence, cannot be retained as part of the PAA---Article 175 of the Constitution provides the establishment and jurisdiction of courts---It requires that in order to fully secure the independence of judiciary, it must be separated from executive in all respects---The courts martial comprising of executive, being outside the scope of Article 175(3) of the Constitution cannot prosecute the civilians---The trial of civilians by courts martial offends the fundamental principle of independence of judiciary, fundamental rights of security of person, safeguard as to arrest and detention, fair trial and due process, right to information, equality of citizens and Injunctions of Islam, as guaranteed by Articles 2A, 9, 10, 10A, 19A, 25 and 227(1) of the Constitution, respectively---Denial of right of appeal to civilians against the conviction and sentence by courts martial before an independent and impartial forum is also violative of fundamental right of fair trial and due process---The trial of civilians by courts martial presided over by active military officers, is violative of the recognized covenants of the United Nations Human Rights Commission ('UNHRC') as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 ('ICCPR') and treaties, to which Pakistan is a signatory---The trial of civilians by courts martial is in excess of the functions assigned to the Armed Forces by Article 245 of the Constitution---Convictions and sentences awarded to civilians by Courts Martial for the occurrence of 09-05-2023 were without jurisdiction and were set aside---Accused under custody were to be treated as under-trial prisoners and their cases would be transferred to concerned Courts of competent jurisdiction for trial---Upon receipt of cases, the concerned Courts should proceed with their trials expeditiously and decide the same at the earliest in accordance with law---Persons who had completed/undergone their sentences or had been acquitted of the charge by Courts Martial or Forum of Appeal under Pakistan Army Act, 1952, would have the effect of their discharge under section 169 Cr.P.C.---Intra Court Appeal was dismissed. [Minority view] For Appellant(s)/Applicant(s) For Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law: Mansoor Usman Awan, A.G.P. Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. A.G.P. Raja Muhammad Shafqat Abbasi, D.A.G. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record. Jawaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record. Dr. Nazakat Ali Bhand, Asst Solicitor, Ministry of Law and Hasan Mehmood, Legislative Advisor Ministry of Law (in I.C.As. Nos. 10 to 14 and 22 to 25 of 2023) For Ministry of Defence: Khawaja Haris Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court Assisted by Miss Zaynib Chaudhry, Advocate and Hamza Khalid, LLB (Hons). Brig. (R) Falak Naz, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Defence. Lt. Col. Zahid Hussain, LO, Ministry of Defence. Lt. Col. Muhammad Ali, LO, Ministry of Defence (in I.C.As. Nos.20 and 21/2023). For Province of Balochistan: Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, Advocate Supreme Court. M. Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl.A.G. Balochistan. Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record. Assisted by Messrs Abdullah Noor, Advocate Hamza Azmat Khan, Advocate, Barrister Khizer Hayat Khan, Barrister Imran Khan and Muhammad Arsal Kamran Advocate (in I.C.As. Nos. 15 to 19 of 2023). For Shuhada Forum Balochistan: Shumail Butt, Advocate Supreme Court. (through video link from Peshawar). Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record (in I.C.A. No. 5 of 2023). For Province of Punjab: Wasim Mumtaz Malik, Addl. A.G. Punjab and Sanaullah Zahid, Addl. A.G., Punjab (in I.C.A. No.6/2023) For Government of Sindh: Saifullah, Addl. AG, Sindh and Sibtain Mehmood, Addl.A.G. Sindh (Via video link, Karachi). For the Respondents: For Justice (R) Jawwad S. Khawaja: Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, Advocate Supreme Court, Assisted by Ms. Rida Hosain, Advocate (in I.C.As. Nos. 5, 6, 14 and 17 of 2023). For Lahore High Court Bar and Lahore Bar Associations: Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court. Muhammad Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court. Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Advocate Supreme Court. Syed Rifaqat Husain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (in I.C.As. Nos. 5, 6, 11, 15 and 20 of 2023). For Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan: Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court. Barrister Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court. Shahbaz Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court. Assisted by Barrister Zunaira Fayyaz, Sozain Jehan, Ghulam Murtaza Malik, Syed Mehmood ul Hassan Gilani and Usman Zakir Abbasi, Advocates (in I.C.As. Nos. 19, 20 and 22 of 2023). For Junaid Razzaq: Salman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court. Assisted by Asad Rahim Khan, Malik Ahsan Mehmood, Atira Ikram, Raja Hamza Anwar, Wyena Qureshi, Minahil Fatima, M. Ali Talib, Muhammad Shakeel Mughal, Muhammad Hamza Aslam, Sardar Ahsan Raza and Malik Ghulam Sabir, Advocates (in I.C.As. Nos.21 and 25 of 2023). For Karamat Ali, etc.: Faisal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court (in I.C.As. Nos. 10, 16 and 24 of 2023). For Imran Khan Niazi: Uzair Karamat Bhandari, Advocate Supreme Court. Dr. Usman Mirza, Advocate-on-Record. Assisted by Ali Uzair Bhandari, Advocate (in I.C.As. Nos. 19, 20 and 22 of 2023). For Aamir Sabir: Abid S. Zuberi, Advocate Supreme Court. Ms. Bushra Qamar, Advocate Supreme Court. Assisted by Amna Khalili, Saif Shahid and Ashar Khan, Advocates. Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore) (in I.C.A. No. 12 of 2023). Zaman Khan Vardag, Advocate Supreme Court, in-person (via video link from Lahore) (in person in I.C.A. No. 13 of 2023). For Supreme Court Bar Association: Mian Rauf Atta, Advocate Supreme Court/President and Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan, Advocate Supreme Court/Acting Secretary. Voluntarily appeard: Hafeez Ullah Khan Niazi, In-person. (father of one of the convicts.) For Province of KPK: Shah Faisal Ilyas, Addl.A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Dates of hearings: 9th, 10th, 12th and 13th December 2024, 7th to 10th, 13th to 17th, 28th to 31st January, 3rd, 4th, 10th to 13th and 18th to 20th, 24th to 27th February, 3rd to 6th, 10th to 13th March, 7th to 9th, 14th to 18th and 28th, April and 5th May, 2025.