Summary: Labour Cases---Summary Pending

Summary: [(1) Application of the law of limitation to inheritance cases. (2) Three different evidential standards of proof applicable in civil, criminal, and quasi-criminal cases, (3) Scope of jurisdiction of the revisional court in interfering with findings of fact]---the issue involved an estate left behind by an individual who passed away in 1959. The estate comprised land in a village called Jalalpur Sharif. The estate was inherited by a nephew. This nephew subsequently sold parts of the land to various individuals, who further sold or exchanged it.A group of individuals challenged the inheritance and subsequent transactions through a civil suit filed in 1982. They claimed to be rightful heirs and argued that they were deprived of their share due to fraudulent transactions. The case proceeded through trial and appellate courts, resulting in differing judgments. The final judgment by the Lahore High Court's revisional jurisdiction dismissed the suit on the grounds that the claimants failed to prove their relationship with the deceased and that the case was time-barred.The claimants contended that the evidence provided by witnesses with "special knowledge" supported their claim and that the preponderance of probability favored their stance. The opposing side argued that the claimants lacked sufficient evidence and that the revisional court's intervention was legally valid.The Supreme Court discussed the evidential standards of proof applicable in civil cases, emphasizing the "preponderance of probability." It discussed the concept of "fraud" as defined in the law and its relevance to the case. The Court found that the claimants had demonstrated their relationship with the deceased through a high degree of probability, shifting the burden to the opposing side to counter this evidence, which they failed to do.The Court also addressed the issue of limitation in inheritance cases and discussed the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act. It clarified that the benefit of postponing the limitation period is not applicable against bona fide purchasers. In this case, since the opposing side had purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration, the benefit of extending the limitation period was not available to the claimants.Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the revisional court's decision to dismiss the suit based on the grounds of limitation and failure to prove the asserted relationship. The Court determined that the revisional court's intervention was within its jurisdiction, and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Husband purchased plot in Punjab Cooperative Housing Society, punjab, the title has been surreptitiously changed. She seeks provision of documents and relevant copies

Summary: Bail Before Arrest in FIR No. 491/2021, dated 03 -11 -2021 U/s 420/468/471 PPC, P.S Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad.

Summary: Against impugned order dated 19.11.19 whereby cancellation report submitted by I/O is accepted by learned trial court

Summary: FAO: Seeking direction to setaside the impungned order date 06-07-2021 passed by Intellectual Property Tirbunal, Islamabad.

Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR No. 229/2020, dated 01-12-2020, U/s 489-F PPC, PS Margalla, Islamabad.

Summary: Police: Against acceptance of 22-A Justice of Peace.

Summary: The decree-holders as per their statement recorded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan not only have restricted themselves to the extent of 01-Kanal and 01-Marla but have also provided a shield to the possessor thereof and this statement is an established fact against the plea of decree-holders in getting the Possession of the entire house. How it was possible without determination of this particular aspect, i.e., the Location of the house and handing over the possession is a question which was required to be decided by the learned executing court. No doubt executing court cannot go beyond the scope of decree but this does not mean that executing court will exercise its powers as per whims, wishes and desire of a person, who he may be. The legislature in their wisdom within four corners of Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on one hand has put a embargo to file a fresh suit against the lis already decided but on the other hand has provided a vast power to the executing court not only for the decree holders but also for the person who has got any right in the subject matter of the decreed property.