Summary: Background:Kiss Naureen Naz Butt (the "Appellant") challenged a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court in Intra Court Appeal No. 608 of 2009. The Appellant was initially employed as an "Airhostess" on a contract basis, which was subsequently extended until December 31, 2004. After her contract expired, the Appellant sought reinstatement and regularization of her services.---Issues:Whether the Appellant, as a contract employee, had a vested right to continue her employment after the expiry of her contract period.Whether the terms and conditions of the Appellant's employment, being governed by a contract, entitled her to reinstatement and full back benefits.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the judgment of the Lahore High Court. It held that contractual employees do not possess a vested right for regular appointment after the expiry of their contract period. Citing legal precedents such as Mubarak Ali v. Government of Punjab (1997 PLC (CS) 284), Government of Balochistan v. Dr. Zahida Kakar (2005 SCMR 642), and Iffuzaffar Khan v. Government of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 304), the Court reiterated that contractual employment terminates upon the expiry of the contract period, without creating any vested right for continuation. Additionally, the Court noted that the terms of the Appellant's employment were governed by a contract, not statutory rules, making her request for reinstatement and full back benefits unsustainable under contract law principles.---Citations/Precedents:Mubarak Ali v. Government of Punjab (1997 PLC (CS) 284)Government of Balochistan v. Dr. Zahida Kakar (2005 SCMR 642)Iffuzaffar Khan v. Government of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 304)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------Ss.5, Sched. & 17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 163---Suit for recovery ofdowry articles---Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908not to apply---Acceptance or denial of claim on oath---Scope---Plaintiff filed suit forrecovery of dowry articles against the defendant---Defendant instead of contesting the suitfiled application making an offer of taking special oath with regard to return of articles byhim to the plaintiff---Offer of special oath was accepted by the plaintiff and in that respectthe statement was recorded by the Trial Court---Suit filed by plaintiff was decreed and appealfiled against the same was also dismissed---Validity---Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat,1984, were not applicable to Family Court's proceedings---Family Court could regulate itsown procedure and was not bound by the rigors of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, but FamilyCourt was not barred from settlement of the dispute on special oath---Subsequent objectionof the defendant that it was in violation of Art.163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was nottenable---Constitutional petition was dismissed.1990 MLD 389 and Attiqullah v. Kafayatullah 1981 SCMR 162 ref

Summary: O.II, R.2---Plea of bar under O.II, R.2(3), C.P.C., when attracted.To attract the plea of bar under Order II, Rule 2(3), C.P.C., it must be made out.i. That the second suit was in respect of same cause of action as that on which formersuit was based.ii. That in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than onerelief.iii. That plaintiff in former suit was entitled to more than one relief in respect of samecause of action, but without leave of the Court omitted to sue for the relief for whichthe second suit had been filed.iv. That plaintiff was entitled to such relief at the time of former suit.v. Suit be between the same parties and should arise out of same cause of action-----(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11; O.II, R.2; Ss.11 & 12(1)---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 32---SpecificRelief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration and possession though partition---Earliersuit was dismissed---Constructive res judicata, principle of---Applicability---Second suit onsame cause of action---Plaint, rejection of---Trial Court dismissed the suit under S.11 andO.II, R.2 of C.P.C.---Validity---Earlier suit for partition filed by the plaintiff against thedefendants had been dismissed---Arbitration proceedings initiated for making the award arule of Court with regard to decision of arbitrator pertaining to the partition of suit propertyhad also been dismissed---Nobody should be vexed twice for the same cause of action andthere should be an end of litigation---Plaintiff was precluded to file present suit incircumstances---If plaintiff had not taken a particular ground of defence or attack in theearlier suit then principle of constructive res judicata would be applicable---Plaintiff couldnot split the cause of action by filing subsequent suit with regard to same subject matter---Order II, R. 2 of C.P.C. barred a plaintiff, who had earlier claimed certain relief, from filingsecond suit with regard to other relief based on same cause of action---Second suit could befiled on different cause of action---Constructive res judicata was applicable in the case asearlier suit filed by the plaintiff on same cause of action for partition of suit property hadbeen dismissed---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.2000 CLC 1107 and 1989 CLC 1718 ref.Khushi Muhammad and 2 others v. The Province of the Punjab Through Secretary toGovernment of the Punjab and 2 others 1999 SCMR 1633; Amanullah Malik v. MianGhafoor-ur-Rehman and others 1997 SCMR 1796; PLD 2004 SC 178; PLD 1974 SC 80;2006 SCMR 1262; PLD 2005 SC 430; State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and anotherv. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others 2012 SCMR 280; Greenhalgh v. Mallard 1947 (2) All ER 257;Abdul Hakim and 2 others v. Saadullah Khan and 2 others PLD 1970 SC 63; Trustees of thePort of Karachi v. Organization of Karachi Port Trust Workers and others 2013 SCMR 238;and Ali Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Bashir and another 2012 SCMR 930 rel.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional petition---Policy framed by Government---Judicial review---Scope---Petitioners assailed certain clauses of a recruitment policy---Validity---Recruitmentpolicy had not caused any prejudice to the petitioners and the same was not arbitrary ratherwas based on the settled principles of law---Courts did not interfere or strike down a policymade by Government unless it was proved to be mala fide, arbitrary, made in colourableexercise of authority or abuse of power---Record, in the present case, did not reveal any malafide, arbitrariness or abuse of power on the part of the Government in respect of theimpugned clauses of the recruitment policy---Constitutional petition was dismissed.Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 98; Safdar Jamil v. ViceChancellor 2011 CLC 116 and Junaid v. Federation of Pakistan 2012 CLC 1962 ref.Musa Wazir v. N.W.F.P Public Service Commission 1993 SCMR 1124 rel.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional petition---Policy decision by Government---Mala fide---Scope---Mala fide, being a question of fact, has to be specific and not vague---Policy framed by thecompetent authority, in the absence of mala fide, cannot be annulled.Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2014 SC 1 ref.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------Ss.5, Sched & 17-A---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles---Non-payment of interim maintenance---Striking off defence---Scope---Defendant failed topay interim maintenance and his defence was struck off---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Family Court had warned the defendant that in case of failure to pay interimmaintenance the suit of plaintiff would be decreed without recording of evidence---Defendant did not pay interim maintenance nor complied with the order of the Family Court---Father was bound to provide maintenance to his minor children---Order of Family Courtdirecting the father to pay maintenance to the minor during pendency of suit was accordingto law---Conduct of defendant did not entitle him to discretionary relief---Defendant had notchallenged the order of Family Court whereby he was ordered to pay interim maintenance---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below could not be declared to havebeen passed without jurisdiction and lawful authority---Family Court had jurisdiction tostrike off defence of defendant who had failed to pay interim maintenance and to decree thesuit without recording evidence---No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in theimpugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below---Constitutional petition wasdismissed, in circumstances.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Conduct of petitioner to betaken into consideration in allowing or disallowing equitable relief---Principles.The conduct of petitioner can be taken into consideration in allowing or disallowingequitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction. The principle that the Court should lean infavour of adjudication of causes on merits, appears to be available for invocation only whenthe person relying on it himself comes to the Court with clean hands and equitableconsiderations also lie in his favour. High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is bound toproceed on maxim "he who seeks equity must do equity". Constitutional jurisdiction is anequitable jurisdiction. Whoever comes to High Court to seek relief has to satisfy theconscience of the Court that he has clean hands. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in aid of injustice. The High Court will not grant relief under Article 199 when the petitioner doesnot come to the Court with clean hands. He may claim relief only when he himself is notviolating provisions of law, especially of the law under which he is claiming entitlement whois guilty of bad faith and unconscionable conduct. The right is in the nature of ex debitojustitiae, but will only be granted if the petitioner can show that his conduct has not beensuch to disentitle him of such a relief. This jurisdiction of the High Court should not beexercised if it leads ultimately to a patent injustice.Manzoor Hussain v. Zulfiqar Ali 1983 SCMR 137; Abdul Wahid Khan v. Custodianof Evacuee Property PLD 1966 Quetta 25 and Muhammad Arif v. Uzma Afzal 2011 SCMR374 rel.(c) Administration of justice-------He who seeks equity must do equity

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending