Summary: Thus, the legal position is now very clear that the Public Service Commission in the case of competitive examination would still maintain a waiting list valid for 03 months for further recommendation in case any of the selected candidate does not join his service. In the present case, although, there is some confusion which is being created by letter dated 23.10.2018, which shows the date of arrival of Wazebullah to his post, however, the subsequent letter of the appointing department dated 30.10.2018, and the clarification issued by the same Department through letter dated 14.02.2019, clearly shows that the said Wazebullah has not actually joined his service as he was not referred to Medical Board for medical examination.

Summary: The court proceedings in the case of Khalid Mehmood's conviction for the murder of Muhammad Sher, son of Muhammad Sarwar, unfolded with a focus on evidence, witness testimonies, and legal standards. Despite initial sentencing to death by hanging and an order to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased, Khalid Mehmood's conviction faced scrutiny in appellate court. Witness testimonies presented inconsistencies, raising doubts about their credibility and presence at the crime scene. Medical evidence, while detailing the injuries sustained by the victim, failed to definitively link Khalid Mehmood to the crime. The prosecution's case relied heavily on witness accounts and motives without robust substantiation, while the recovery of the weapon did not conclusively connect it to the crime. Moreover, the accused's abscondence, though suspicious, lacked corroborative evidence of guilt. Ultimately, the court's decision to acquit Khalid Mehmood underscored the principle that doubts in favor of the accused must prevail, highlighting the importance of upholding legal standards to prevent wrongful convictions.

Summary: The petitioner sued for damages amounting to Rs.11,000,000, citing a false laboratory report from the respondent, which indicated positive results for P-ANCA and C-ANCA antibodies, suggesting a serious illness. The petitioner claimed to have suffered mental distress and incurred financial losses due to subsequent tests in the UK, which reported negative results. The trial court partially granted relief for travel expenses but dismissed other claims. On appeal, the decision was overturned, prompting the petitioner's revision petition. The petitioner argued the evidence supported his claims of stress and financial loss, alleging the respondent's report was incorrect. In response, the respondent denied negligence, stating the tests were part of a comprehensive diagnosis. The court noted inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims, questioning the basis for the tests and the subsequent actions taken. It emphasized the need for clinical correlation and expert testimony, which the petitioner failed to provide. The court concluded that the respondent acted professionally, and subsequent tests confirmed their accuracy. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed affirming the trial court's decision.

Summary: The appellant, New College Publications, had initially filed a writ petition, and interim stay was granted. Subsequently, respondents No.2 to 6 filed an application for clarification regarding the stay order, which was modified to allow them to complete the tender process, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The appellant challenged the order through an Intra Court Appeal, contending that the order was not interlocutory but final, thus maintaining the appeal under Section 3(3) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The court, in its analysis, referred to legal precedents Noor Muhammad Lambardar vs. Member (Revenue) etc (2003 SCMR 708),National University of Sciences etc vs. Dayyan Atta Tareen (2011 YLR 1070), Messrs National Security Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Messrs Hoechst Pakistan Ltd. and others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 709), Messrs Qadoos Brothers vs. Judge Banking Court etc (2018 CLD 88), these precedents helped the Lahore High Court establish a clear understanding of what constitutes an interlocutory order and guided its decision on the maintainability of the appeal in the case at hand. Applying these definitions to the impugned order, the court concluded that since the main lis (matter) was yet to be decided, and substantial proceedings remained pending, the order was indeed interlocutory and did not dispose of the entire case. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.

Summary: The appellant argued that the application for withdrawal was, in substance, under Order XXIII, Rule 2(b) of the CPC, which allows the court to permit a plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one if sufficient grounds are disclosed. The appellant contended that the trial court should have either allowed the application in its entirety or dismissed it entirely, as it was indivisible.The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and case law, held that the law laid down in the case of Muhammad Yar (dec'd) and others v. Muhammad Amin (dec'd) and others 2013 SCMR 464 was correct. However, the Court clarified that for Rule 2(b) to be applicable, the facts disclosed in the application must legally constitute a "ground" for withdrawal. In this case, the application did not disclose any such ground, and it was not a legitimate basis to allow the appellant to withdraw the suit at its own will and file it again later. Therefore, the Court upheld the dismissal of the suit by the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: The appellant argued that the application for withdrawal was, in substance, under Order XXIII, Rule 2(b) of the CPC, which allows the court to permit a plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one if sufficient grounds are disclosed. The appellant contended that the trial court should have either allowed the application in its entirety or dismissed it entirely, as it was indivisible.The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and case law, held that the law laid down in the case of Muhammad Yar (dec'd) and others v. Muhammad Amin (dec'd) and others 2013 SCMR 464 was correct. However, the Court clarified that for Rule 2(b) to be applicable, the facts disclosed in the application must legally constitute a "ground" for withdrawal. In this case, the application did not disclose any such ground, and it was not a legitimate basis to allow the appellant to withdraw the suit at its own will and file it again later. Therefore, the Court upheld the dismissal of the suit by the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: The appellant argued that the application for withdrawal was, in substance, under Order XXIII, Rule 2(b) of the CPC, which allows the court to permit a plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one if sufficient grounds are disclosed. The appellant contended that the trial court should have either allowed the application in its entirety or dismissed it entirely, as it was indivisible.The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and case law, held that the law laid down in the case of Muhammad Yar (dec'd) and others v. Muhammad Amin (dec'd) and others 2013 SCMR 464 was correct. However, the Court clarified that for Rule 2(b) to be applicable, the facts disclosed in the application must legally constitute a "ground" for withdrawal. In this case, the application did not disclose any such ground, and it was not a legitimate basis to allow the appellant to withdraw the suit at its own will and file it again later. Therefore, the Court upheld the dismissal of the suit by the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: The appellant argued that the application for withdrawal was, in substance, under Order XXIII, Rule 2(b) of the CPC, which allows the court to permit a plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one if sufficient grounds are disclosed. The appellant contended that the trial court should have either allowed the application in its entirety or dismissed it entirely, as it was indivisible.The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and case law, held that the law laid down in the case of Muhammad Yar (dec'd) and others v. Muhammad Amin (dec'd) and others 2013 SCMR 464 was correct. However, the Court clarified that for Rule 2(b) to be applicable, the facts disclosed in the application must legally constitute a "ground" for withdrawal. In this case, the application did not disclose any such ground, and it was not a legitimate basis to allow the appellant to withdraw the suit at its own will and file it again later. Therefore, the Court upheld the dismissal of the suit by the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: Background:In 2005, Khawaja Bashir Ahmed & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) filed a suit in the civil courts at Multan against M/s Martrade Shipping & Transport (respondents). On 15.02.2007, the appellant filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1 CPC, seeking to withdraw the suit against the second respondent, M/s Al-Hamd International Container Terminal (Pvt) Ltd., with permission to refile the suit if necessary. The civil judge allowed the withdrawal but did not grant permission to refile. The appellant's revision petition against this order was dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 11.03.2014. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court's order was contrary to the decision in Muhammad Yar (dec?d) and others v. Muhammad Amin (dec?d) and others 2013 SCMR 464.----Issues:Whether the application for withdrawal under Rule 1 of O. 23 CPC should be considered under Rule 2(b), allowing withdrawal with permission to refile if sufficient grounds are shown.Whether the civil judge's order, which allowed the withdrawal of the suit without granting permission to refile, was proper and lawful.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the application filed by the appellant did not disclose any sufficient ground under Rule 2(b) of O. 23 CPC for permission to refile the suit. The appellant merely stated a desire to withdraw the suit temporarily and reserved the right to sue again when necessary, which does not constitute a legal ground.The Court reiterated that a plaintiff cannot withdraw a suit at their discretion and refile it at will, as this would undermine the purpose of Rule 3 of O. 23 CPC.The Court found the order of the civil judge, which allowed withdrawal without permission to refile, to be correct. The application did not provide a valid legal ground to warrant the court's consideration under Rule 2(b).The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision and the civil judge's original order.Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Yar (dec?d) and others v. Muhammad Amin (dec?d) and others 2013 SCMR 464Karim Gul and another v. Shahzad Gul and another 1970 SCMR 141

Summary: Family Matter: Mother of minor impungns suo-moto grant of visitation to father despite that fact that father is suffering from a severe chronic fungal skin disease. On legal ground of suo-moto grant of visitation and an factual ground of disease of father, seeks setting aside of visitation schedule.