Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioner, facing a recovery suit, claimed unavoidable circumstances for being initially proceeded ex-parte. The court, after analyzing the case history, noted the petitioner's failure to fulfill court conditions and his inconsistent engagement in the legal process. The document underscored the court's adherence to the special circumstances requirement for setting aside an ex-parte decree under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the CPC. The court finds the petitioner's plea belated and lacking in supporting material, and it emphasized the importance of a litigant remaining vigilant in prosecuting their case. The court concluded that the petitioner has not demonstrated special circumstances justifying his absence, and it highlighted the limited scope of revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC. Citing legal precedents, the court stressed the need for material illegality or irregularity for the safe exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The document concludes with a reference to a Supreme Court case, highlighting the restricted nature of revisional jurisdiction and the need for a jurisdictional error to invoke it. Instant petition was dismissed.

Summary: Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------Ss.13 & 15---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.72 & 78--- Ejectment of tenant---Landlord and tenant, relationship of---Proof---Documentary evidence---Production andadmissibility---Appellant was alleged to be tenant in demise premises against whichejectment order was passed on the basis of documents produced by respondent / landlord,whereas relationship of tenant and landlord was denied by the appellant/tenant---Validity---Producing of documents and proof of documents were two different subjects---Documentscould be produced in evidence subject to proof as required under Art.78 of Qanun-eShahadat, 1984---Neither the person who signed the documents was examined nor it wasproved through any other evidence to suggest that documents were issued by the personmentioned in the document---Documents which were relied upon by Rent Controller werenot proved in accordance with law, therefore, the same could not be taken into consideration---High Court set aside the ejectment order which was based on the documents not part andparcel of record and due process of evidence was not adopted, resultantly matter wasremanded to Rent Controller for decision afresh---Appeal was allowed accordingly.Muhammad Yousuf v. S.M. Ayub PLD 1973 SC 160 at page 191 and Federation ofPakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another v. Jaffar Khan and others PLD2010 SC 604 rel.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------Ss.11 & 13---Eviction of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlady---Conversion ofthe demised property---Scope---Land lady/respondent contended that she needed five shops(demised property) in order to convert the same into rooms for residential purpose to beincluded into the adjacent house belonging to her ---Contention/objection of the appellants(tenants) was that the respondent (landlady) had not obtained any permission/approval fromthe competent authority for conversion of the demised property from commercial toresidential one---Held, that under S.11 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance,1959 landlord/landlady could not convert a residential building into a non-residentialbuilding without the written permission of the Rent Controller, which meant no statutorybar/restriction for conversion of a non-residential building into a residential house---Landlady/respondent would not be obliged to seek the order of Rent Controller forconverting a non-residential premises into residential one.Sultan Muhammad Sabir v. Shaukat Mehmood and 7 others 1992 MLD 1962 andMunir Malik v. Sabir Hussain 1989 SCMR 193 ref.(b) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S.13---Eviction of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlady---Land lady/respondentcontended that she needed five shops ( demised property ) in order to convert the same intorooms for residential purpose to be included into the adjacent house belonging to her---Held,that respondent/landlady had adduced cogent and worthy of credence evidence tosubstantiate her version through her Attorney who had explained her genuine bona fide andpersonal need in simple straightforward and convincing manner---Witnesses produced by therespondent/landlady stood firm to the test of cross-examination and nothing beneficial couldbe extracted in spite of numerous questions---Where the statement of landlady on oath wasquite consistent with his averment made in the eviction application; neither her statementwas shaken nor anything else was brought in evidence to contradict her statement ; thatwould be considered sufficient for acceptance of eviction application---Findings of the RentController regarding personal requirement of the landlady were based on elaborate, careful and correct appraisal of evidence and did not suffer from any misreading of the evidence---No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment of the Rent Controllerordering eviction of tenants---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCMR 1062; Muhammad Shoaib Alam and others v.Muhammad Iqbal and others 2061 SCMR 903 and Muhammad Hayat v. MuhammadMiskeen (DECD) through LRs and others 2018 SCMR 1441 ref.(c) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S.13---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 23 & 24---Right of property---Scope---Evictionapplication---Bona fide personal need of the landlady---Utilization of property by landlady---Sufficiency------Right of property, being a fundamental right, was protected under Arts. 23 &24 of the Constitution---Right of ownership, admittedly, was superior to the right of tenancy---Appellants/tenants, being inferior in status regarding the utilization of shops (demisedproperty), could not determine its sufficiency or insufficiency---Eviction application wasrightly allowed by the Rent Controller.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background:Muhammad Javed was killed on 10.12.2012 in a dispute over cattle grazing in the jurisdiction of Police Station Donga Bonga, District Bahawalnagar.Muhammad Khan alias Kali, along with co-accused Muhammad Din alias Pappu and Nadeem alias Ghona, were accused of causing fatal injuries to Muhammad Javed.Autopsy revealed fatal injuries to the temporal region and chest, resulting in skull fracture, leading to death.Following trial, Muhammad Khan alias Kali and Nadeem alias Ghona were convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC), and sentenced to death. Their appeals resulted in Muhammad Khan alias Kali's conviction being upheld, with the death penalty commuted to life imprisonment, while Nadeem alias Ghona was acquitted.---Issues:Whether the acquittal of Nadeem alias Ghona and Muhammad Din alias Pappu was justified despite their alleged involvement in the crime.Whether there was sufficient evidence to uphold Muhammad Khan alias Kali's conviction in the absence of independent corroboration.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found it necessary to re-examine the evidence in the interest of justice due to the peculiar circumstances of the case.Leave was granted to revisit the evidence.Bailable warrants were issued for Nadeem alias Ghona and Muhammad Din alias Pappu to ensure their appearance before the court.

Summary: Bail denied---Background:The petitioner, Ikhtiar Khan, along with co-accused, intercepted a group of individuals who were on their way to attend court proceedings. The incident occurred on August 13, 2003, within the precincts of Police Station Batgram District Charsadda. As a result of indiscriminate firing, the vehicle carrying the individuals plunged into a nearby canal, leading to the death of all passengers. The petitioner remained at large for a significant period and surrendered after some of the co-accused were acquitted.---Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail following the acquittal of some co-accused.Whether the High Court's decision to deny bail to the petitioner is justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court considered the petitioner's plea for bail in light of the acquittal of some co-accused but found it untenable. Both the Court of Session and the High Court had previously denied bail to the petitioner, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the statements of witnesses, supported by medical evidence and recovery from the scene, provided reasonable grounds to deny bail. Moreover, the petitioner's prolonged absence from the law and the discretionary nature of bail further justified the denial. The Court determined that the High Court's decision fell within the bounds of the law and did not warrant interference.---Citations/Precedents:Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Summary: Leave granted---Background:Junaid Ayub was fatally shot on 22nd March 2010 at 3:30 p.m. within the precincts of Police Station City Sumandri, Faisalabad. The incident was reported by his father, Muhammad Ayub, who accused Zeeshan alias Shani and Abid Ali of the crime. While Abid Ali was acquitted during the trial, Zeeshan was convicted under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to death. However, his sentence was altered to imprisonment for life by the High Court.---Issues:Whether the acquittal of Abid Ali was justified, considering the allegation of shared common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code.Whether there are sufficient grounds to re-appraise the evidence against Zeeshan alias Shani, considering investigative conclusions contradicting the initial crime report.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The prosecution's case relied primarily on the testimony of Asad Ayub and Abid Ali, who were witnesses to the confrontation leading to the fatal shooting. Asad Ayub, being the deceased's brother, reported the incident to the police. The prosecution argued that both accused shared a common intention, and therefore Abid Ali's acquittal was erroneous. However, the court found the grounds for acquittal reasonable and declined to grant leave for further appeal in Abid Ali's case.Regarding Zeeshan alias Shani's conviction, the court expressed concern over the investigative conclusions that contradicted the initial crime report. The court deemed it necessary to re-appraise the evidence against Zeeshan to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice. Consequently, leave was granted for a re-evaluation of Zeeshan's case.---Citations/Precedents:302 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Summary: Background: This case involves the implementation of a previous court judgment (Muhammad Azeem Dutt vs. Raja Khadim Hussain & others [2017 SCR 577]) regarding the illegal allotment of plots in Mirpur. The court had previously constituted a high-level Commission of Inquiry, which provided several recommendations concerning the illegal allotments. -----Issues: 1- How should the illegal allotment of plots be addressed? 2- What steps should be taken for the regularization of the plots? 3- How should the oversight of the regularization process be conducted? 4- What actions should be taken against the delinquent officers responsible for the illegal allotments? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court's order addresses the categorization and regularization of the plots as follows: First Category: 1696 plots with minor types of encroachments can be regularized without charging any fee. Second Category: 545 plots, subdivided into: Vacant Plots: 343 plots to be restored for their original purpose. Constructed Plots: 202 plots with complete construction to be regularized in the public interest. The Chairman of the Mirpur Development Authority is directed to complete the regularization process within two weeks, supervised by the District and Sessions Judge, Mirpur, and the President of the Central Bar Association, Mirpur. After the process, the Chairman must submit a report to the District and Sessions Judge, who will then forward it to the court. The entitlement of allottees must be considered, and any allotment beyond entitlement will be deemed canceled. Additionally, copies of applications from aggrieved persons must be provided without delay. The Advocate-General is queried about the inquiry against officers responsible for the lapses, with three officers already suspended. The process for their removal from service is underway, and the court expects proceedings to comply with the law. The outcome will be reported to the court through the Advocate-General. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Azeem Dutt vs. Raja Khadim Hussain & others [2017 SCR 577]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending