Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Dismissal of objection petition seeking cancellation of warrants of arrest issued against the attorney amounts to a final appealable order in terms of section 14 of the Family Courts Act 1964---The petitioner, who was the brother and attorney of the judgment debtor, challenged the orders, which resulted in warrants of arrest being issued against him. The petitioner argued that as he was neither the judgment debtor nor stood as surety or guarantor for him, the issuance of warrants of arrest against him was unjustified. The court observed that the impugned orders were not mere issuance of warrants but amounted to a final decision by the executing court, citing a Supreme Court judgment and precedent. Consequently, the court ruled that the orders were appealable before the appellate court under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964. Specifically, the judge cited a Supreme Court judgment reported as Muhammad Pervez vs. Mst. Nabila Yasmeen and 2 others (2004 SCMR 1352) as well as a judgment reported as Rahim Bukhsh vs. Mst. Shehzadi and others (2018 CLC 1789). These precedents were used to establish that the orders issued by the executing court amounted to final decisions and were therefore appealable before the appellate court under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The judge also noted that the dismissal of an objection petition, as in the petitioner's case, was considered an appealable order, as per legal precedent.

Summary: [Territorial Jurisdiction] The petitioner sought the recovery of Rs. 945,475/- from the Provincial Government and the concerned Highways Authorities in Faisalabad.The Lahore High Court had previously dismissed the petitioner's suit, stating that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The High Court relied on Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which determines the jurisdiction of the court based on the defendant's residence, cause of action, or the defendants' consent.The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's decision was based solely on the provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, without considering the specific circumstances of the case. The petitioner pointed out that although the contract was executed in Faisalabad, it was approved by the Provincial Government in Lahore, which should have been taken into account.The Supreme Court examined the case law and found that in situations where the government engages in commercial activities that do not fall within its core sovereign functions, it is subject to Section 20 of the CPC. Since the construction of roads is a commercial activity, the Provincial Government should be treated as a corporation under Explanation II to Section 20 of the CPC. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Courts in Lahore had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's suit.The Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and allowed the petition, effectively converting it into an appeal. The Court did not reevaluate the merits of the case as they were already decided by the Trial Court, and no contest was made by the Provincial Government before the Appellate Court on that issue.

Summary: the local commissioner did not perform his job honestly, and the evidence and documents received by the commissioner were not in accordance with the law. The petitioner contends that the judgment is based on assumptions and surmises, and the observations made about the commissioner's conduct remain unsubstantiated.The Supreme Court found that the application of Rule 8 of Order XVIII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by the High Court to discard the evidence recorded through the commissioner was erroneous. Rule 8 is not applicable when evidence is recorded through a court-appointed commission. The court clarified that the commissioner's evidence forms part of the judicial record and must be considered accordingly.The court also discussed the procedure for recording evidence through a commission and noted that the trial court has the authority to examine witnesses itself or through a commissioner. The court may also direct a further inquiry or recall witnesses if dissatisfied with the proceedings. The court concluded that the case must be remitted back to the trial court for a fresh examination of witnesses and a decision on the merits.Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment, ordering the matter to be heard again before the trial court. The case is deemed pending before the trial court until it reaches a decision on the basis of the evidence recorded. The instant appeal petition was allowed, and the case is to be decided in accordance with the law after giving notice to the parties

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against life imprisonment offence U/S 302 in FIR registered in Police Station Lohi Bher

Summary: Against impugned judgement dated 01.06.2019 passed by the Learned ADJ East ICT whereby respondent no.1 has been awarded life Imprisonment in case FIR 287-17 dated 23.11.2017 PS Lohi Bher U/s 302 PPC Petitioner Seeks Enhancement in Sentence