Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Seeks declaration that PN farms are without NOC, Seeks declaration of CDA status as rule regulator, Challenges legality PN farms bye laws revised modalities of 2020 lastly seeks enforcement of environmental protection act 1997 over the department of PN farms

Summary: [Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Section 12 G&W Interim Custody Modified. )] The learned Civil & Family Judge shall fix any two days in a month for the meeting of father-respondent No.1 with the minor baby Dua, and in the meanwhile, petitioner-mother shall not take away the custody of minor out of the jurisdiction of the learned Guardian and Wards Court without intimation to the concerned Court. However, the respondent-father shall have visitation rights i.e. Birthdays, Eid occasions, and summer and winter vacations and arrangements shall be made by the learned Family Court upon filing appropriate application by the respondent-father and the learned Family Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate order on such application concerning the date, time and place of meeting of minor with respondent-father, however, that arrangement is subject to the observation made by this Court as discussed in the preceding paragraph and also subject to payment of maintenance of the minor, which has already been done by the learned Family Court.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The main issues were whether a mutual mistake of fact existed between the parties, whether a money decree could be granted despite not being explicitly prayed for in the plaint, whether a report from a local commission justified the money decree, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.The court analyzed the concept of mutual mistake of fact, stating that it renders an agreement void under the Contract Act 1872. The court outlined the conditions necessary for such a mistake, including the fundamental nature of the mistake and its impact on the contract. The court emphasized that both parties must be under the same misconception about an essential fact for the agreement to be void.In this case, the court determined that a mutual mistake existed regarding the area of land being sold. The court held that this mistake was essential to the contract, and the buyer would not have paid the price had the mistake been known. Therefore, the court concluded that the transaction related to the deficient land was void under section 20 of the Contract Act 1872.Regarding the money decree, the court discussed its authority to grant relief not specifically prayed for in the plaint. It referred to previous cases and established that the court has the power to mold relief within the scope of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, the court ruled that the money decree was permissible given the circumstances and findings.The court also considered the report of the local commission, which showed the mistake in land measurements. The court clarified that the report was used to ascertain facts, not legal entitlements, and supported the lower courts' decisions.Lastly, the court addressed the issue of limitation. It determined that the cause of action for the claim arose when the mutual mistake of fact was discovered, and not earlier when the transaction took place. Therefore, the court held that the money decree issued by the trial court was within the limitation period.In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the lower courts' decisions, dismissing the appeal based on its legal analysis of mutual mistake, relief molding, the local commission's report, and the application of the limitation period