Summary: ----Art. 9A---Right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment - Deforestation---Adverse effects---Forests, importance of---Forest cover in Pakistan has been rapidly decreasing, suggesting complicity and/or negligence of the Forest Department, which is supposed to protect forests---Deforestation results in unprecedented land-slides and flooding, and the diminishing forest cover is not sufficient to enable the sequestering of the green house gas emissions caused by burning fossils fuels, which exacerbates the effect of climate change, the consequences of which are suffered by the people---Pakistan is amongst the countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change---However, the Forest Department appears to view forests as a resource to be exploited which was a policy of the former colonizers---Future of the people of Pakistan depends in having adequate forest cover---Existing dwindling forests must be preserved and efforts should be made to stop deforestation---A viable future is dependent on preserving and conserving the environment and adopting sustainable environmental practices---Forests are natural rainfall catchment areas, and they also ensure against flooding and avalanches---Rain water flowing in to the streams and rivers must not be polluted---Unfortunately and regrettably sewage and industrial waste are released into water bodies killing the life bearing quality of water---Effects of deforestation and pollution long outlast lives---Trees are equally important in sequestering green house gases released by burning fossils fuels---Environment has been placed as a Fundamental Right (i.e. Article 9A) in the Constitution and its significance and importance must be brought to bear on everyone and effective preservation measures be taken. (b) Practice and procedure--- ----Every document filed in Court must have name of the person who submits/files it. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 9 & 9A---Right to life---Scope---Clean, healthy, and sustainable environment---Life worth living is one having a sustainable environment. Shah Faisal Ilyas, Additional Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Sajid, Aman, SDFO, Forest Department on Court's Notice for Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Date of hearing: 24th October, 2024.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No.39095/2020). Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)--- ----Ss. 2(h) & 4(4)(ii)---Harassment at workplace---Scope---Petitioner was proceeded departmentally for causing harassment at workplace and was compulsorily retired from service---Validity---Robust framework to combat harassment and promote safe, inclusive work environments has been provided under Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010---Effectiveness of such laws depends on strong judicial enforcement---As jurisprudence evolves, Courts must continue to interpret and apply such protections in a manner that upholds human dignity, gender justice and workplace equality---High Court had convincingly answered in its judgment, the contentions of the petitioner---There was no jurisdictional error, illegality or procedural irregularity in the judgment passed by High Court---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Catherine A. MacKinnon, Only Words (Harvard University Press, 1993); International Labour Organization, Experiences of Violence and Harassment at Work: A Global First Survey (2022) accessed 12 February, 2025; World Economic Forum, Global Gender Gap Report (June 2024), < 2024.pdf> accessed 12 February, 2025; Paula Nicolson, Gender, Power and Organization: A Psychological Perspective on Life at Work (Routledge, 1996); Deborah Rhode, Speaking of Sex: The Denial of Gender Equality (Harvard University Press, 1999); L. Fitzgerald and S. Shullman, 'Sexual Harassment: A Research Analysis and Agenda for the 1990s' Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42(1) (1993); Catherine A. MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination (Yale University Press, 1979); 'Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace' U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission < enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace>. It addresses how harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information is defined under EEOC-enforced statutes and the analysis for determining whether employer liability is established; Anne M. Kelly, Lynn Bowes-Sperry and Emily R. Lean, 'Sexual Harassment at Work: A Decade (Plus) of Progress' Journal of Management, 35(3) (2009); Sumi Cho, Kimberle Williams Crenshaw and Leslie McCall, 'Towards a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis' Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38:4 (2013); Heather McLaughlin, Christopher Uggen and Amy Blacktone, 'Sexual Harassment, Workplace Authority, and the Paradox of Power, American Sociological Review (Volume 77, Issue 4) (August 2012); Jennifer L. Berdahl, 'Harassment Based on Sex: Protecting Social Status in the Context of Gender Hierarchy' Academy of Management Review (April 2007); Vicki Schultz, 'The Sanitized Workplace' Yale Law Journal (Volume 112, 2003); Uzma Naveed Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 783; Article 1, ILO Violence and Harassment Convention (2019). The Convention entered into force on 25 June 2021 and has been ratified by 39 states; Articles 2 and 11, CEDAW (1979). Pakistan ratified the CEDAW in 1996; Articles 1 and 23, UDHR (1948). Pakistan ratified the UDHR in 1948; Article 7, ICCPR (1966). Pakistan ratified the ICCPR in 2010; Article 7, ICESCR (1966). Pakistan ratified the ICESCR in 2008; Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 477 U.S. 57 (1986); Harris v. Forklift System 510 U.S. 17 (1993); Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011; Janzen v. Platy Enterprises [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252 and Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) rel. Rashad ul Musawar, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Assisted by Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 12th February, 2025.

Summary: ----S. 3---Passports Rules, 2021, R. 22 (2) Lists A & B---Passport Control List (PCL)---Categories of persons---Appellants were aggrieved of placing their names in PCL and were denied exit from Pakistan for the reason that their mother had been declared proclaimed offender in a criminal case---Validity---Federal Government is vested with powers to regulate departure from and entry within Pakistan, under R. 22 of Passport Rules, 2021---It is required under R. 22(2) of Passport Rules, 2021, that Directorate concerned and Directorate General of Immigration and Passport maintain PCL for placement of names in categories "A" and "B"---Category "A" admits names of persons involved in anti-state activities---There was no allegation against appellants for anti-State activities, levelled by authorities---Under category "B" list of names of those who had been refused passport but did not fall in category "A" was to be maintained---Respondents authorities never refused passport to appellants under Passport Rules, 2021---Criminal case in question involved allegation of huge loss to government exchequer and accused in that FIR did not join investigation---This alone could not be a valid reason for placing names of appellants on PCL for such a long time and curtailing their rights recognized in law---Year of occurrence given in FIR was 2019 when appellants were less than 16 years of age---Division Bench of High Court set aside the order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court as names of appellants could not be retained in PCL---Intra Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances. The Federal Government through Secretary Interior, Government of Pakistan v. Ms. Ayyan Ali and others 2017 SCMR 1179; Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 6 others PLD 2023 Lah. 359; Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and 4 others 2019 PCr.LJ 1123; Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and others 2017 PCr.LJ 1569; Messrs United Bank Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2014 CLD 544; Farah Mazhar and 3 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others PLD 2022 Lah. 119; Mrs. Ifrah Murtaza and another v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 2019 Lah. 565; Hamid Khan through Authorized Attorney v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others 2024 YLR 59; Faisal Maqbool Shaikh v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others (W.P. No. 2141 of 2023), Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior Islamabad and another 2024 MLD 1020; Tabish Badar through Special Power of Attorney v. Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 2 others 2023 CLC 1457 and Jaffar Khan v. Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others PLD 2023 Bal. 65 rel. Muhammad Azhar Siddique, Ms. Salma Riaz and Ms. Amna Liaqat for Appellants. Muhammad Mansoor Ali Sial, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan and Muhammad Nawaz Shah, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing; 25th April, 2024.

Summary: And C.M.A.5277/2023 In C.R.P.NIL/2023 In C.P.L.A.3113/2020 (Against order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in W.P. No. 1381 of 2020.) C.R.P. No. 540 of 2023 and C.M.A. No. 5277 of 2023 in C.R.P. Nil of 2023 in C.P.L.A. No. 3113 of 2020, decided on 14th February, 2025. (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 188---Review of judgment---Question of law---Effect---Sole basis of judgment under review was dismissal of petition for leave to appeal on a question of law---Validity---When decision (more formally, the ratio decidendi) turns solely on a pure question of law and all the more so when that question is exclusively a matter of statutory interpretation, it is not enough for review petitioner to contend that the interpretation is incorrect---To allow such a ground to be taken would be, in effect, to allow review petitioner to reargue the case---Ground for review would have to be that the decision was per incuriam; it was difficult to conceive of any other reviewable ground being available. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 188---Review of judgment---Non-assailing order of High Court- --Petitioner did not assail order passed by High Court---After dismissal of petition for leave to appeal filed by another party, petitioner intended to seek review of that judgment of Supreme Court---Validity---It was not open to a person who was a party to proceedings in High Court and was heard there but chose not to assail the latter's decision in the Supreme Court to then turn around and complain on some other party's leave petition, that the same was dismissed without notice to it---Application was dismissed. Ch. Hafeez Ullah Yaqub, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.R.P. No. 540 of 2023). Rehan-ud-Din Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicant (in C.M.A. No. 5277 of 2023). Ch. Hafeez Ullah Yaqub, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.M.A. No. 5277 of 2023) and Rehan-ud-Din Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.R.P. No. 540 of 2023) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th February, 2025.

Summary: And C.M.A.5277/2023 In C.R.P.NIL/2023 In C.P.L.A.3113/2020 (Against order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in W.P. No. 1381 of 2020.) C.R.P. No. 540 of 2023 and C.M.A. No. 5277 of 2023 in C.R.P. Nil of 2023 in C.P.L.A. No. 3113 of 2020, decided on 14th February, 2025. (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 188---Review of judgment---Question of law---Effect---Sole basis of judgment under review was dismissal of petition for leave to appeal on a question of law---Validity---When decision (more formally, the ratio decidendi) turns solely on a pure question of law and all the more so when that question is exclusively a matter of statutory interpretation, it is not enough for review petitioner to contend that the interpretation is incorrect---To allow such a ground to be taken would be, in effect, to allow review petitioner to reargue the case---Ground for review would have to be that the decision was per incuriam; it was difficult to conceive of any other reviewable ground being available. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 188---Review of judgment---Non-assailing order of High Court- --Petitioner did not assail order passed by High Court---After dismissal of petition for leave to appeal filed by another party, petitioner intended to seek review of that judgment of Supreme Court---Validity---It was not open to a person who was a party to proceedings in High Court and was heard there but chose not to assail the latter's decision in the Supreme Court to then turn around and complain on some other party's leave petition, that the same was dismissed without notice to it---Application was dismissed. Ch. Hafeez Ullah Yaqub, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.R.P. No. 540 of 2023). Rehan-ud-Din Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicant (in C.M.A. No. 5277 of 2023). Ch. Hafeez Ullah Yaqub, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.M.A. No. 5277 of 2023) and Rehan-ud-Din Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.R.P. No. 540 of 2023) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th February, 2025.

Summary: ----S. 48---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21---Completion of acquisition---Acquisition Commission, powers of---Principle---Power of Acquisition Commissioner to withdraw from acquisition of any land is unfettered till possession has been taken---Provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contemplates that once possession has been taken, acquisition is complete, and the Commissioner can no longer exercise power to withdraw---After possession has been taken, land is vested in the Government, and notifications issued prior to it cannot be cancelled under S. 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897. (b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss. 4 & 13---Acquisition of land---Denotification---Possession not transferred---Effect---Appellant/land owner was aggrieved of judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court whereby de-notification of acquired land was set-aside---Validity---Land in question was included in notification dated 06-11-1980 issued under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894and notification dated 05-01-1981 was issued under S. 13 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Award of Khasra number in question was not announced and proceedings to acquire its possession were initiated to the extent of 01-Kanal 15 Marla only, which did not include land of appellant---No party can be expected to wait indefinitely, as Government acquires its valuable right to the immovable property---If Government or its acquiring department did not have the funds, it should have made up its mind quickly and that too before taking possession and should have told the landowners where they stood---Land acquisition process started decades ago, and landowners were struggling to get their legitimate rights---No law could condone indolence of respondent-Lahore Development Authority---Respondent/ Commissioner Lahore Division, taking into account the conduct of respondent/LDA, was justified to de-notify land of appellant measuring 04-Kanal comprising Khasra number in question---Intra Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and another v. Akhtar Ullah Khan Khattak and others PLD 2024 SC 218 rel. Liaqat Ali v. District Collector, Gujrat and 4 others 2022 MLD 1195 and Wali Rehman v. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Gujranwala Division and 7 others 2022 CLC 106 ref. Muhammad Khalil Rana for Appellant. Ms. Samia Khalid, Additional Advocate General and Ch. Waseem Arif for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th November, 2024.

Summary: ----S. 48---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21---Completion of acquisition---Acquisition Commission, powers of---Principle---Power of Acquisition Commissioner to withdraw from acquisition of any land is unfettered till possession has been taken---Provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contemplates that once possession has been taken, acquisition is complete, and the Commissioner can no longer exercise power to withdraw---After possession has been taken, land is vested in the Government, and notifications issued prior to it cannot be cancelled under S. 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897. (b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss. 4 & 13---Acquisition of land---Denotification---Possession not transferred---Effect---Appellant/land owner was aggrieved of judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court whereby de-notification of acquired land was set-aside---Validity---Land in question was included in notification dated 06-11-1980 issued under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894and notification dated 05-01-1981 was issued under S. 13 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Award of Khasra number in question was not announced and proceedings to acquire its possession were initiated to the extent of 01-Kanal 15 Marla only, which did not include land of appellant---No party can be expected to wait indefinitely, as Government acquires its valuable right to the immovable property---If Government or its acquiring department did not have the funds, it should have made up its mind quickly and that too before taking possession and should have told the landowners where they stood---Land acquisition process started decades ago, and landowners were struggling to get their legitimate rights---No law could condone indolence of respondent-Lahore Development Authority---Respondent/ Commissioner Lahore Division, taking into account the conduct of respondent/LDA, was justified to de-notify land of appellant measuring 04-Kanal comprising Khasra number in question---Intra Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and another v. Akhtar Ullah Khan Khattak and others PLD 2024 SC 218 rel. Liaqat Ali v. District Collector, Gujrat and 4 others 2022 MLD 1195 and Wali Rehman v. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Gujranwala Division and 7 others 2022 CLC 106 ref. Muhammad Khalil Rana for Appellant. Ms. Samia Khalid, Additional Advocate General and Ch. Waseem Arif for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th November, 2024.

Summary: ----S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 84---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53-A---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Execution---Proof---Possession of suit property delivered to the vendee---Effect---The respondents (vendees) entered into a sale agreement with the appellants (vendors) for sale of immoveable property---Respondent (vendee) paid earnest money and possession was handed over to him, with the remaining sale consideration to be paid in instalments---Despite full payment, the title was never transferred, constraining the respondents (vendees) to institute a suit for specific performance---The appellants (vendors) contested the suit, claiming that the respondents (vendee) were tenants and that the suit was barred by limitation---Suit was decreed by the Single Judge against which present appeal was instituted---Held: In evidence the respondents (vendees) submitted relevant receipts of payments of sale consideration to the appellants (vendors) and all such receipts were on the letter head of the company being run by appellants (vendors) and were signed by its late proprietor and he was the same person who had signed the agreement to sell---Regarding the signature of the late proprietor/signatory, the respondents (vendees) had got the same examined from the handwriting expert in terms of Art. 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Said expert deposed positively that the receipts contained signatures of late proprietor who had also signed the agreement to sell---Such receipts were in bulk amount and could not be considered mere payments of rent by respondents (vendees)---Only ground taken by appellants (vendors) to defeat validity of such receipts was that they did not bear any date---Mere non-mention of date on the receipts did not invalidate the same or made them redundant in the eyes of law when otherwise contents thereof were established and the payments made through them were not specifically rebutted or refuted by the appellants (vendors) except the plea that they were made in respect of rent regarding which no evidence was put forth---The benefit of S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was also available to the respondents (vendees) as they were put in possession at the time of sale agreement---Single Judge while decreeing the suit took into consideration all pieces of evidence adduced by parties, implication of relevant laws such as Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908 and S. 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and concluded, duly supported by reasons, in favor of the respondents (vendees) and there was no justification to reverse the same---Appeal being without merit, was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.113---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Limitation---Scope---Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1908 stipulates that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell should be filed within three years from the performance date or if no such date is specified, then when the plaintiff notices that the performance has been refused. (c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S.53-A---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Agreement to sell---Pre-requisites for taking benefit of S.53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 stated---Benefit of the S. 53-A of the ibid Act becomes due in favor of the vendee when he is put in possession of the suit property at the time of the sale agreement---Four conditions/pre-requisites for seeking benefit of the S. 53-A ibid are that: (i) The contract must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the transferor; (ii) The transferee should be in possession of the immoveable property covered by the contract; (iii) The transferee had done some act in furtherance of the contract; (iv) The transferee had either performed his part of the contract or was willing to perform his part of the contract. Muhammad Salman Noor for Appellants. Hamza Hidyatullah for Respondents.

Summary: ----Ss. 2(b) & 7---Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 3(b)---Notification S.R.O.No.1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961---Pakistan origin spouses living abroad having developed strained relations---Divorce proceedings, carrying out of---Jurisdiction/authority-- - Pakistan Consulate/Mission abroad and Chairman Union Council in Pakistan---Petitioner (Overseas Pakistani) filed constitutional petition against refusal of the concerned Chairman Union Council(Respondent) to issue him divorce effectiveness certificate---Validity---Petitioner was permanently residing in Germany and record (valid Resident/Health Card) pertaining to respondent/lady showed that she was also living in Germany---Even at the time of alleged notices of Talaq the petitioner was not available in Lahore/Pakistan---In cumulative view of the provisions under Ss. 2(b) & 7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 ('the Ordinance 1961') and R. 3(b) of the Rules made under the Ordinance 1961 as well as Notification S.R.O. No.1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961, in the present case, the jurisdiction for taking up the matter-in-hand was with the designated officer in the Pakistan Consulate/Mission in Germany while the Union Council and/or the Chairman would have authority if the wife was residing within its territorial jurisdiction at the time of pronouncement of divorce---Thus, as per Notification S.R.O. No. 1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961, officers of Pakistan Mission abroad are authorized to discharge the functions of Chairman under the Ordinance 1961 and the Chairman, Union Council/respondent had no authority to deal with the matter in hand in respect of divorce---Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent/Chairman Union Council (Respondent) had rightly been passed while construing law on the subject, which did not need any interference by the High Court---Constitutional petition, having no force and substance, was dismissed, in circumstances. Mt. Sharifan v. Abdul Khaliq and another 1983 CLC 1296; Ms. Sadaf Munir Khan v. Chairman, Reconciliation Committee and 2 others PLD 2019 Lah. 285; Mian Irfan Latif through Special Attorney v. Nazim/ Chairman Union Council No.100 and another 2009 YLR 1141; Mst. Sana Asim Hafeez v. Adminstrator/ Chairman, Arbitration and Conciliation Court 2016 MLD 1061; Syeda Wajiha Haris v. Chairman, Union Council No.7, Lahore 2010 MLD 989 and Ms. Sadaf Munir Khan v. Chairman, Reconciliation Committee and 2 others PLD 2019 Lah. 285 ref. (b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----Ss. 2(b) & 7---Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 3(b)---Notification S.R.O. No. 1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961---Pakistan origin spouses living abroad having developed strained relations---Divorce proceedings, carrying out of---Jurisdiction/authority--- Non-disclosure of proceedings abroad---Approaching Court with unclean hands---Petitioner (Overseas Pakistani) filed constitutional petition against refusal of the concerned Chairman Union Council (respondent) to issue him divorce effectiveness certificate---Validity---Petitioner did not disclose the factum of initiation of proceedings before the District Courts in Germany with regards to complaint against physical assault, claim for separate accommodation and maintenance, meaning thereby the petitioner had not approached the High Court with clean hands---Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent/ Chairman Union Council (respondent) had rightly been passed while construing law on the subject, which did not need any interference by the High Court---Constitutional petition, having no force and substance, was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----Ss. 2(b) & 7---Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 3(b)---Notification S.R.O. No. 1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961---Pakistan origon spouses living abroad having developed strained relations---Divorce proceedings, carrying out of---Jurisdiction/Authority--- Pakistan Consulate/Mission abroad and Chairman Union Council in Pakistan---Chairman Union Council (respondent) refused to issue to the petitioner divorce effectiveness certificate on the plea that under the Notification S.R.O. No. 1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961 (SRO)Pakistan Consulate/Mission abroad had the authority in matter-in-hand---Petitioner (Overseas Pakistani) filed constitutional petition against the said refusal contending that SRO in question had been struck down by the Islamabad High Court---Validity---Said S.R.O. was fully in vogue in Punjab as no verdict as such had been passed by the Lahore High Court---A relief cannot go beyond the provincial boundary and affect any other province or area or its people---Thus, as per Notification S.R.O. No. 1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961, officers of Pakistan Mission abroad are authorized to discharge the functions of Chairman under the Ordinance 1961, and the Chairman, Union Council/respondent had no authority to deal with the matter in hand in respect of divorce---Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent/Chairman Union Council (respondent) had rightly been passed while construing law on the subject, which did not need any interference by the High Court---Constitutional petition, having no force and substance, was dismissed, in circumstances. Hassan Shahjehan v. FPSC through Chairman and others PLD 2017 Lah. 665 ref. Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahal for Petitioner. Ms. Yasrab Gulzar for Respondent No.3. Mian Jaffer Hussain, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Additional Advocate General Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th January, 2024.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law--- ----Gift to wife---Presumption---In case of gift of immovable property by husband to wife, the fact that husband continues to live in the house gifted or receives rents after the date of gift do not invalidate the gift---Presumption is that rents are collected by husband as a rent collector on behalf of the wife and not on his own accord. Mst. Kaneez Bibi and another v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others PLD 1991 SC 466 and Riaz Ullah Khan v. Asghar Ali and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1701 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 39, 42 & 54---Suit for cancellation of document, declaration and injunction---Registered gift deed---Proof---Petitioner/plaintiff claimed that suit property was not gifted and respondent/defendant failed to prove the gift in her favour---Suit and appeals were concurrently dismissed by all Courts below---Validity---Recital of gift demonstrated donor's intention to divest him of all control over subject matter of gift---This act fulfilled necessary requirement of intention to transfer possession and divest control---There was no evidence on record to suggest that the donor undertook an action indicating intention to withhold possession of gift---High Court elaborately and comprehensively considered all aspects of the matter, legal as well as factual---High Court had rightly declined to interfere in concurrent findings as the same were not perverse, arbitrary, fanciful or capricious---Supreme Court maintained judgment and decree passed by High Court as there was no misreading of evidence or any infirmity or illegality---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Babar Anwar v. Muhammad Ashraf and another 2024 SCMR 734; Principles of Mohammedan Law by D.F Mulla; Abid Hussain and others v. Muhammad Yousaf and others PLD 2022 SC 395; Syed Md. Saleem Hashmi v. Syed Abdul Fateh and others AIR 1972 Patna 279; Mst. Kaneez Bibi and another v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others PLD 1991 SC 466; Riaz Ullah Khan v. Asghar Ali and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1701; Nawab Mirza Mohammad Sadiq Ali Khan and others v. Nawab Fakr Jahan Begam and others AIR 1932 PC 13; Ameeroonnisa Khatoon v. Abedoonisa Khatoon (1875) L.R. 2 I.A. 87; Ismail and others v. Idrish and others AIR 1974 Patna 54 and Abrar Ahmed and another v. Irshad Ahmed PLD 2014 SC 331 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Alternate and efficacious remedy---Whan an alternative and efficacious remedy is available under ordinary legal framework, Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory mechanisms in place---Constitutional petition is not intended to substitute ordinary remedies provided under law. Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record and Muhammad Imran Shamsi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in both cases). Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 26th December, 2024.