Summary: Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (XX of 2017)--- ----S.2(i)---Mediation---Importance/ benefits---Judges/Advocates/Litigants, role/responsibilities of---Mediation is not merely alternative to litigation; it is a paradigm shift in dispute resolution, built on the principles of collaboration, confidentiality, and party autonomy, which offers a non-adversarial framework that empowers parties to shape the outcome of their own disputes, guided by a neutral facilitator rather than a judicial determination---The benefits of mediation are manifold: it reduces the costs associated with protracted legal battles, alleviates the burden on courts and ensures quicker resolution of disputes---The confidential nature of mediation protects the privacy of the parties and its informal setting encourages honest communication and problem-solving---Moreover, the flexibility of the process allows parties to explore creative, interest-based solutions that a court of law may not be empowered to grant---What years of litigation cannot resolve, mediation can achieve within weeks, which reinforces the principle that the earlier a dispute is channeled through mediation, the greater the potential for cost and time savings, reduced emotional strain and restored relationships---Courts must embrace a pro-mediation ethos, particularly at the initial stages of litigation---Judges and lawyers must be sensitized to identify cases fit for mediation and facilitate their referral in a timely manner---Litigants, likewise, should be encouraged to consider mediation and other methods of alternative dispute resolution as a first resort, rather than a last recourse. Messrs Mughals Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited v. Employees Old Age Benefits Institution through Director Law, Lahore and others PLD 2025 SC 1 and Muhammad Naseer Butt v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others CPLA No. 3519 of 2021 ref. Sardar Muhammad Ghazi Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, A.A.G (on Court call).

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonoring of cheque---Bail, grant of---Counsel and client relationship---Non-payment of professional fee charges---Breach of contract---Complainant was advocate and accused was his client who paid professional charges in shape of cheque which was dishonoured on presentation---Held: If client failed to make full fee payment, the amount could be recovered through civil remedies---Initiation of criminal case against one’s own client could only be considered in exceptional circumstances where no other remedy was available---Failure to pay for service, such as legal representation, does not necessarily result in penal consequences---State of consciousness that is culpable is the essential component of criminal liability---Dishonestly issuing a cheque is punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment under section 489-F, P.P.C. and the offence necessitates rigorous examination---Alternative remedies were available under civil law, such as claim for compensation for loss or injury resulting from breach of contract under section 73 of Contract Act, 1872 and suit for recovery under Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Provision of section 489-F, P.P.C. is intended to function as a safeguard against fraud, rather than as a blade to enforce civil recovery---Mens rea (dishonest intent) must be established in order to incur penal consequences and criminal proceedings under 489-F, P.P.C. must not be used as a substitute for civil remedies---Bail was allowed. 2023 SCMR 1948 and 2013 SCMR 51 rel. Abbad-ul-Hussnain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (through V/L from Karachi) Khadim Hussain, A.P.G., Sindh for the State. Assisted by: Mahnoor Omer, Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 30th June, 2025.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) --- ----Ss.8 & 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat, (10 of 1984), Art.113---Suit for declaration and possession---Allotment of shops by Municipal Corporation---Defendant alleging plaintiff to be a benami allottee of shop---Burden of proof---Defendant/asserting party failing to discharge onus---Effect---Admissions in pleadings---Defendant admitting in his written statement that shop was allotted to petitioner/plaintiff --- Admitted facts need not be proved---Principle---Essence and scope of S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 emphasized---“Title” and “entitlement”---Distinction --- Brief facts were that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession regarding suit property i.e. shop claiming it was allotted in his name during a municipal survey, while respondent No. 1 (petitioner’s/ plaintiff’s real brother) was allotted adjoining shop---Both the Trial court and the appellate court dismissed his suit, prompting him to institute the present civil revision---The record showed that the municipal corporation confirmed the allotment of suit property in the petitioner’s/plaintiff’s name, whereas the dispute between the brothers centered on who held the genuine entitlement to the suit property/shop---Core issue for determination before the High Court was as to “Whether, under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the petitioner/plaintiff could lawfully be declared entitled to suit property/shop and recover possession when the allotment stood in his name which fact was not denied by the municipal authority, but was disputed by his brother claiming benami allotment”?---Held: It was evident from the written statement filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 that there was an admission regarding allotment in the name of petitioner/plaintiff---Allotment in the name of petitioner/plaintiff had not been denied but a specific plea was taken that petitioner was “benami” allottee and respondent/defendant in alternate spent money and got him a shop but did not bother to prove his plea taken in the written statement---Both the courts below failed to read the pleadings as well as evidence of parties and also failed to apply Art.113 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which provided that “admitted facts need not to be proved”---It was clear from the record that the petitioner/plaintiff was the allottee of the suit property/shop---Both the courts below failed to interpret and evaluate the words “title” and “entitle” in its true perspective while judging the case between two competitors i.e. petitioner and respondent No.1---While doing so, both the courts below mis-interpreted the said expressions due to which petitioner was non-suited---Respective allotments in favour of petitioner and respondent No.1 were their entitlement and right and equated title as they could sell/transfer their allotment rights to any person by definitely informing the City District Government which was owner of the suit property---Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of record and were not sustainable in the eye of law and same were set aside---Suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and possession was decreed---Present civil revision petition was partially allowed, in circumstances. Amjad Ali and others v. Anwar Shah and others 2025 SCMR 211 rel. Hassanally and others v. Noor Muhammad through this Legal Heirs and another 1995 MLD 1458 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) --- ----S. 42---Declaration of status or right, seeking of---“Title and “entitlement”, meanings of---Distinction---“Title” refers to a legal right of ownership or entitlement to property which indicates who has the lawful authority or claim over the property in question amongst the contesting parties qua their entitlement---“Entitlement” is to be construed in a broader meaning and cannot be restricted to ownership only. Mian Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner. Ch. Zulfiqar for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 proceeded against ex parte on 10.10.2023. Date of hearing: 19th June, 2025.

Summary: When cause of death is injuries to major pelvic organs, cavity and major blood vessels, then it is relevant to mention here that injuries to major blood vessels result death without loss of much time and in such circumstances time mentioned between injuries and death by the Medical Officer as "6 to 8" hours is beyond the rationale as well as against the settled principles of medical jurisprudence; similarly if without mentioning about "rigor mortis" as well as "colour of the wound" in the Postmortem Examination Report, Medical Officer mentions time between death and postmortem examination as "16 to 26" hours, then this opinion is also ipsi-dixit i.e. without any basis/material and cannot discard confidence inspiring ocular account.

Summary: If recovery of weapon of offence has been shown from accused during the period of his illegal detention then such recovery loses its legal efficacy being suspect circumstance.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: When cause of death is injuries to major pelvic organs, cavity and major blood vessels, then it is relevant to mention here that injuries to major blood vessels result death without loss of much time and in such circumstances time mentioned between injuries and death by the Medical Officer as "6 to 8" hours is beyond the rationale as well as against the settled principles of medical jurisprudence; similarly if without mentioning about "rigor mortis" as well as "colour of the wound" in the Postmortem Examination Report, Medical Officer mentions time between death and postmortem examination as "16 to 26" hours, then this opinion is also ipsi-dixit i.e. without any basis/material and cannot discard confidence inspiring ocular account. 345Writ Petition- Regulatory Authorities- Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) 2010-24 SARDAR AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 27- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 5392 PLD 2025 Lahore 827

Summary: If recovery of weapon of offence has been shown from accused during the period of his illegal detention then such recovery loses its legal efficacy being suspect circumstance. 344Jail Appeal 39441/22 Muhammad Arif Vs The State Mr. Justice Farooq Haider 30- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4602 PLJ 2025 Cr.C 703 (DB) (Lahore High Court, Lahore), 2025 YLR 2472 (Lahore)