Summary: Against impugned order dated 04.04.2019 passed by respondent no.1 whereby the recomendations of the banking mohtasib have been upheld

Summary: False and Frivolous Cases.

Summary: Non Compliance of section 27-28-31 CNSA, r/w section 103 CrPC provides penal consequences.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Record reveals that appeal was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 04th October, 2016, however, vide order dated 23rd April, 2019 office was directed to requisition the record and prepare the paper book before the next date of hearing and matter was directed to be listed on 13th June, 2019. On the said date, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Expression ?hearing? used in Order XLI Rule 17(1) of ?CPC? corresponds to adherence of all the steps outlined by Rules 11 to 16 of Order XLI of CPC. Adverting to the question of limitation it is observed that though Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908 provides thirty days for an application seeking re-admission of the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under Order XLI Rule 17(1) of CPC from the date of dismissal but in the light of discussion made hereinabove order dated 13th June, 2019 cannot be termed as an order passed under Order XLI Rule 17(1) of ?CPC?. In such an eventuality, residuary Article i.e. 181 of the Act 1908 would come into play, which provides three years period of limitation.

Summary: Life Imprisonment---Acquittal---The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death. The High Court later altered the sentence to life imprisonment while maintaining the compensation order.According to the prosecution's narrative, a dispute arose between the victim and the appellant over water on the morning of the incident. The appellant and his co-accused allegedly fired shots at the victim, resulting in his death. The complainant had not directly witnessed the occurrence but relied on information provided by other individuals who later recanted their statements.During the appeal, the defense argued that the complainant had not personally witnessed the incident and that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses had inconsistencies. Witnesses who had earlier provided statements recanted their statements, creating doubt about the case. Additionally, the recovery of a pistol .30 bore from the appellant did not match the crime empties, further weakening the prosecution's case.The Supreme Court considered these arguments and concluded that the complainant had not directly witnessed the occurrence and relied on statements that were later recanted. The court emphasized that the testimonies were inconsistent, and the medical evidence did not fully align with the prosecution's account. The court highlighted that the recovery of the pistol did not match the crime empties, further undermining the prosecution's case. As a result, the court found a dent in the prosecution's case and granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.

Summary: Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowered the High Court to decide the case on its merits, especially when sufficient evidence existed----The Respondents claimed sole ownership and possession of the land as Hissadars, contending that the Appellants lacked any right of ownership or possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondents on 11th February 2004, establishing their ownership as Hissadars, though the Appellants were awarded Rs. 300,000 for improvements made on the disputed property.Both parties appealed the judgment, with the Appellants filing Appeal No. 26/13 and the Respondents filing Appeal No. 147/13. The Appellate Court overturned the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court. This was due to the involvement of a co-owner named Muhammad Siddique, who had not been included as a necessary party and sought impleadment. The Appellate Court concluded that his presence was essential, thus necessitating a fresh decision.Subsequently, the Respondents filed Civil Revision No. 119-A of 2006 before the High Court, challenging the remand order. The High Court set aside the remand order, reinstated the original judgment and decree, and annulled the compensation awarded to the Appellants.The Appellants contested the High Court's decision, asserting that the High Court's role was limited to examining the legality of the remand order and that it should not have delved into the case's merits.After thorough deliberation, the Supreme Court rejected the Appellants' arguments. It held that Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowered the High Court to decide the case on its merits, especially when sufficient evidence existed. The High Court had scrutinized the application for impleadment by Muhammad Siddique and found it unnecessary due to his claim being aligned with his brothers, who were already parties to the case. As a result, the High Court restored the trial court's judgment.The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision and concluding that the case was disposed of on its merits.

Summary: Other Sentences/5 Years R.I.

Summary: The core issue revolved around compensation and interest matters under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.The bench consisted of Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik. The parties involved were represented by Syeda Nasreen Zohra (deceased) and the Government of Punjab through the Secretary of Communication & Works Department, Lahore, among others.The combined order addressed the critical query of determining the entitlement to interest at a rate of 8% per marla, as mandated by Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The central dispute hinged on establishing the precise date of land possession, which had a direct impact on calculating the interest.The Court concluded that the petitioner's assertions regarding earlier possession dates were not substantiated, given that the agreed-upon possession date was 21.01.1980. The Court referenced Section 34 of the Act, which necessitates the payment or deposit of compensation before taking possession, and specified that if this criterion wasn't met, the petitioner was entitled to interest.The Government of Punjab contested the proposed interest start date, advocating for interest calculation from the award announcement date to the principal amount deposit date. The Court's judgment ruled that the petitioner had a right to interest under Section 34, spanning from 21.01.1980 until the principal amount deposit in 2017.

Summary: The appellant contested the respondent's claim for pre-emption of a land sale transaction. The respondent asserted that he had a superior right to pre-empt the sale of land, as he was a co-sharer in the khata, had easement rights, and was the owner of adjacent property.The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit, finding that he failed to prove the performance of Talab-e-Ishhad (right of pre-emption notice) and denied any receipt of such notice. The respondent's subsequent appeal was also dismissed, but the revision petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the Peshawar High Court, leading to the appeal in question.The key points raised by the appellant were twofold: firstly, that the respondent failed to prove his right of pre-emption at the time of the land sale, and secondly, that the respondent did not prove the service or refusal to accept the Talab-e-Ishhad notice sent to the appellant.The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and legal aspects of the case. The Court noted that while the trial court initially ruled in favor of the respondent on the issue of Talab-e-Ishhad, the appellant (defendant) did not file a cross-appeal or cross-objection against this finding during the appeal process. The Court established that if no part of the decree was against the appellant, the appellant had the right to challenge findings without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objection.The Court further scrutinized the findings related to Talab-e-Ishhad and pre-emption. It was emphasized that the respondent failed to prove the performance of Talab-e-Ishhad in accordance with the law, as he did not produce the necessary evidence to establish the service or refusal of the notice.Additionally, the Court found that the evidence presented by the respondent regarding his alleged co-ownership in the disputed khata was insufficient to establish his right of pre-emption. The Court concluded that the respondent had not proven his right of pre-emption at the time of the sale or filing of the suit.As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Peshawar High Court, and reversed the findings related to the right of pre-emption and Talab-e-Ishhad. The appellant's argument that the respondent had not proven these aspects was upheld by the Court.