Summary: The appeal revolved around the issue of whether the grant of time-scale promotion to a Secondary School Teacher (SST) from BPS-17 to BPS-18 constitutes a promotion or a mere financial benefit without a change in designation. The appellant, Secretary Finance from the Finance Division, challenged the grant of a premature increment to the respondent, Muhammad Farooq Khan, who was a teacher at Islamabad Model School for Boys.The appellant's argument centered on the contention that the time-scale promotion did not entail a change in job responsibilities or designation and, as such, did not qualify as a promotion under the established criteria. They cited various legal opinions and office memorandums to support their position. The appellant also claimed that the respondent did not challenge the establishment division's office memorandum dated 19.09.2011, which characterized time-scale promotions as separate from regular promotions.The respondent's argument, on the other hand, was that the time-scale promotion indeed constituted a promotion, and therefore, he should be entitled to a premature increment. They referred to the relevant summary, notifications, and memorandums to support their claim.The Court, after considering the arguments and analyzing various documents, concluded that the grant of time-scale promotion did not amount to a promotion under the established rules. The Court also referred to previous judgments and interpretations of similar cases, emphasizing that time-scale promotions are not equivalent to regular promotions and do not involve changes in post designations or recruitment rules.Consequently, the Court set aside the decision of the lower Tribunal that had granted the premature increment to the respondent. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant and allowed the appeal.

Summary: PLJ 2021 Peshawar (Note) 132 ----Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Section 42 ----Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 12(2) and 115 ----Legal Issues: --Setting Aside Ex-parte Decree - The respondent claimed he was not served with a summons or notice, leading to the acceptance of his application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The petitioners challenged this acceptance, but the court emphasized that such applications could not be dismissed without proper evidence proving service. --Interlocutory Order and Maintainability - The court clarified that the order under challenge was an interlocutory order, not a final decision, and thus did not fall under Section 115 CPC for revisional jurisdiction. Since both lower courts issued concurrent findings supporting the maintainability of the application, there was no basis to reverse them unless evidence of illegality or jurisdictional error was demonstrated. --Concurrent Findings and Evidence Requirement - The court upheld the lower courts' findings, noting that both parties still had the opportunity to substantiate their claims during trial proceedings. ----Ruling: The court dismissed the revision petition, confirming that the trial court’s decision to consider the application as maintainable was reasonable and could not be challenged as an interim order. ----Cited Precedents: 1992 SCMR, 2006 SCMR 21 ----Judgment Result: Petition dismissed. -----Background: The petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership over specific land based on a registered deed and challenged the validity of consolidation proceedings that reduced their claimed area. The suit was decreed ex parte in 2009 as the defendants, including Respondent No. 1, were not present. In 2018, Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), claiming the decree was obtained fraudulently and without proper service of summons. The trial court accepted the application, deeming it maintainable, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed. ----Issues: 1- Was the application under Section 12(2) CPC, filed by Respondent No. 1, time-barred? -----2- Did the trial court err in deeming the application maintainable without sufficient proof of non-service? -----3- Can the interlocutory order be challenged through a revision petition under Section 115 CPC? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Application’s Timeliness and Service Issue: The court observed that Respondent No. 1 claimed lack of service and cited that he only discovered the decree when reviewing revenue records. Thus, until evidence is recorded, his claim of non-service could not be dismissed summarily. The court held the application could proceed unless proven otherwise. --Interlocutory Nature of Order: The court clarified that the order in question was interlocutory, and Section 115 CPC only applies to final orders or “cases decided.” The trial court’s order was not final as it required further evidence, so it did not qualify as “case decided” under Section 115 CPC. --Concurrent Findings: Both the trial and appellate courts provided concurrent findings in favor of Respondent No. 1’s application. Since no jurisdictional errors or legal irregularities were identified, the court upheld the previous rulings. The revision petition was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: 1992 SCMR 718 2006 SCMR 21 PLD 1964 Lahore 101 1969 SCMR 965 PLD 1987 Lahore 650

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908)-- ----S. 5--Law Reforms Ordinance, (XII of 1972), S. 3--Rejection of bidding officer--Filing of writ petition--Dismissed--Principle of laches--Golden maxim--Law and Courts come to aid of a person who is vigilant and not to aid of a person who is negligent or indolent--In such cases, golden maxim that "law aids vigilant cannot be over-sighted--Helpful hand cannot be extended to a litigant having gone into deep slumber on having become forgetful of his rights- -Single Judge, rightly refused to interfere in matter--No illegality has been pointed out in impugned findings--Petition dismissed

Summary: Estoppel by acquiescence / Estoppel by record. Deceased died issueless having two uterine sisters and full paternal uncle's son, 2/3rd would devolve upon uterine sisters and 1/3rd would be inherited by paternal uncle's son at serial 15 of the table of residuaries in order of succession in absence of sharers.

Summary: Where a legal heir of the common predecessor is found to be beneficiary of the income generated from sale of the inherited properties by another legal heir, the principle of estoppel and waiver may well be invoked against such a legal heir, even in cases of inheritance.

Summary: [Service matters (Bar of Jurisdiction )] It has already been admitted before us that the petitioners claim is in respect of unpaid salary and its implication on post retirement dues. Such a claim has been found by thesuperior courts to be a cause of action of a recurring nature. Even otherwise, the law of limitation envisages exclusion of time expended in bona fide proceedings before a court devoid of primary jurisdiction. We are sanguine that any learned civil court of competent jurisdiction would consider the issue of limitation guided by the principles illumined by the superior courts and would never endeavor to non-suit a supplicant if the same would prima facie perpetuate injustice.