Summary: Petitioner was a regular employee under NESPAK, upon termination he sought declaratory and interim relief. Interim Relief was refused. Appeal also dismissed. Impugns order through writ.

Summary: Petitioner is working as sanitary worker in MCI, seeks direction to assure the payment as monthly salary also seeks direction to eliminate discrimination with christians sanitary workers

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a civil revision challenging the dismissal of his application by the trial court, which refused to grant an extension for depositing the balance sale consideration in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.08.1993. The petitioner's suit for specific performance was decreed ex parte on 20.10.2020, with the condition that he had to deposit the remaining sale consideration within two months. Failure to do so would result in the suit being deemed dismissed. The petitioner sought an extension after the deadline had passed, citing illness, but both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed his request. -----Issues: 1- Whether the decree in the suit for specific performance was preliminary or final in nature. -----2- Whether the court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the balance sale consideration after the expiration of the stipulated period. -----3- Whether the petitioner had provided sufficient justification for the delay in depositing the balance sale consideration. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the decree for specific performance in the petitioner's case was preliminary in nature until the stipulated two-month period expired. Once the petitioner failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the prescribed time, the decree became final and self-operative, and the suit was deemed dismissed. The court ruled that it had become functus officio (without further authority to act) and could not extend the time under Section 148 of the CPC. The court noted that decrees containing a penal clause, such as "the suit shall be deemed to be dismissed," are self-executing, meaning that no further action is required by the court to dismiss the suit upon non-compliance. As a result, the petitioner's suit was automatically dismissed, and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for an extension of time after the expiration of the two-month period. The court also considered the petitioner's conduct, finding that his failure to deposit the amount for over three and a half months, coupled with the lack of credible evidence regarding his illness, did not warrant discretionary relief. The petitioner's reasons for the delay were insufficient and unsubstantiated. The civil revision was dismissed as meritless, with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Shabbir Ahmed and another vs. Zahoor Bibi and others (PLD 2004 SC 790) Muhammad Ismail vs. Muhammad Akbar Bhatti and others (PLD 1997 Lahore 177) Mst. Naseema Salahuddin and 2 others vs. Mst. Daulat Fatima and 4 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 103) Tasneem Ismail and others vs Messers Wafi Associates and others (2007 SCMR 1464) Muhammad Wahid and another vs. Nasarullah and another (2016 SCMR 179)

Summary: The case involves a dispute over the election of the Chief Minister of Punjab, Pakistan.The Lahore High Court had issued a short order, partially allowing writ petitions and directing the resumption of a session of the Punjab Assembly for holding a poll to elect the Chief Minister. The order also required the exclusion of certain votes and recounted votes in case a majority was not secured by any candidate.The petitioners sought leave to appeal against this order and requested that the impugned order be amended to provide adequate time for the assembly members to participate in the proceedings and vote for the Chief Minister election in a fair and transparent manner. They also sought the removal of the current Chief Minister pending the election process due to the absence of a valid notification of his appointment.After hearing the arguments and obtaining consent from all parties, the Supreme Court issued an order amending and modifying the impugned order. The order directed the second poll for the election of the Chief Minister to be held on 22.07.2022 and entrusted the current Chief Minister with a fiduciary role until the second poll. It also addressed the notification of candidates for reserved seats and the bye-election process.The order emphasized the need for fair and transparent elections, adherence to election laws and the code of conduct, and the peaceful conduct of the assembly's business. It appreciated the positive and constructive attitude of all parties involved in the dispute and concluded the case.

Summary: The case involves a dispute over the election of the Chief Minister of Punjab, Pakistan.The Lahore High Court had issued a short order, partially allowing writ petitions and directing the resumption of a session of the Punjab Assembly for holding a poll to elect the Chief Minister. The order also required the exclusion of certain votes and recounted votes in case a majority was not secured by any candidate.The petitioners sought leave to appeal against this order and requested that the impugned order be amended to provide adequate time for the assembly members to participate in the proceedings and vote for the Chief Minister election in a fair and transparent manner. They also sought the removal of the current Chief Minister pending the election process due to the absence of a valid notification of his appointment.After hearing the arguments and obtaining consent from all parties, the Supreme Court issued an order amending and modifying the impugned order. The order directed the second poll for the election of the Chief Minister to be held on 22.07.2022 and entrusted the current Chief Minister with a fiduciary role until the second poll. It also addressed the notification of candidates for reserved seats and the bye-election process.The order emphasized the need for fair and transparent elections, adherence to election laws and the code of conduct, and the peaceful conduct of the assembly's business. It appreciated the positive and constructive attitude of all parties involved in the dispute and concluded the case.

Summary: The case involves a dispute over the election of the Chief Minister of Punjab, Pakistan.The Lahore High Court had issued a short order, partially allowing writ petitions and directing the resumption of a session of the Punjab Assembly for holding a poll to elect the Chief Minister. The order also required the exclusion of certain votes and recounted votes in case a majority was not secured by any candidate.The petitioners sought leave to appeal against this order and requested that the impugned order be amended to provide adequate time for the assembly members to participate in the proceedings and vote for the Chief Minister election in a fair and transparent manner. They also sought the removal of the current Chief Minister pending the election process due to the absence of a valid notification of his appointment.After hearing the arguments and obtaining consent from all parties, the Supreme Court issued an order amending and modifying the impugned order. The order directed the second poll for the election of the Chief Minister to be held on 22.07.2022 and entrusted the current Chief Minister with a fiduciary role until the second poll. It also addressed the notification of candidates for reserved seats and the bye-election process.The order emphasized the need for fair and transparent elections, adherence to election laws and the code of conduct, and the peaceful conduct of the assembly's business. It appreciated the positive and constructive attitude of all parties involved in the dispute and concluded the case.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------Ss. 32 & 33---Articles connected with narcotics---Procedure for confiscation---Scope---Appellant assailed order passed by Trial Court only to the extent of confiscation of vehiclefrom which heroin was recovered---Accused was acquitted of the charge, on an applicationunder S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., however, the vehicle along with contraband was ordered to beconfiscated in favour of the State---Appellant had not claimed ownership of the vehicle inquestion during the course of investigation or trial---Appeal was presented before the Courtwith a considerable delay of four months, that too, without any plausible explanation,whereas, on the other hand the appellant was claiming that the vehicle in question was theonly source of his income and his entire family depended upon the same---Document throughwhich the appellant was trying to prove his ownership was a purchase slip---Vehicle wasregistered in the name of another person---Appellant was not entitled to claim ownershiprights over the vehicle in question---Appeal was dismissed.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 32---Articles connected with narcotics---Scope---Whenever an offence has beencommitted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the intoxicant, utensils, etc.,in respect or by means of which the offence has been committed shall be liable toconfiscation along with receptacles or packages and vehicle, vessel or other conveyance usedto carry the same.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S.25---Custody of minors---Right of father vis-?-vis maternal grandmother---Scope---Maternal grandmother of minor assailed orders passed by courts below whereby minor'scustody was granted to her real father/respondent---Validity---Mother of the minor had diedand her natural guardian had sought custody of the minor which was allowed by the courts---Nothing was alleged against the respondent which could qualify or disentitle him fromcustody of the minor girl---Respondent was educated and did not suffer from anydisqualification envisaged by law---Respondent, right from the inception was vigorouslypursuing the remedies to obtain the custody of his daughter---Contention of petitioner thatrespondent had no feelings towards his daughter and he had deliberately left the daughter atthe house of the petitioners after the death of his wife had no force---Constitutional petitionwas dismissed.Nasir Raza v. Additional District Judge Jhelum 2018 SCMR 590 rel.(b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S.17---Matters to be considered by the Court in appropriate guardian---Scope---Whiledealing with the question of custody of minor, the paramount consideration before the Courtof law is the welfare of minor and the welfare of minor cannot be jeopardized on any otherconsideration.(c) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------Preamble & S.17---Provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 and Code of Civil Procedure not toapply---Scope---Family Courts, which are creation of Family Courts Act, 1964, have toformulate their own procedure---Provisions of C.P.C. are not applied in the context---Legislature has intentionally kept the provisions of C.P.C. not applicable in the proceedingsbefore the Family Court in order to expedite the proceedings and for early disposal of casesso that the litigants before the Family Court e.g. family members, husband or spouses shouldnot suffer the agony of prolonged litigation.Farzana Rasool v. Dr. Muhammad Bashir 2011 SCMR 1361 and Muhammad TabishNaeem Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lahore 2014 SCMR 1365 rel.

Summary: Civil: - Plaintiff of a specific performance of suit impugns dismissal suit to the extent of one defendant

Summary: Petitioenr has pruchased a lexus car from an owner after due delligence lateer when he visited ETO office the registration of vehicle be suspended, Seeks setting aside of suspension