Summary: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)-------S. 17---Ejectment of tenant---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant---Default in payment of rent---Effect---Rent Controller accepted ejectment petition and directed the tenant to vacate the demised premises---Validity---Tenant had admitted that he had paid rent to the husband of landlady---Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties---Tenant had not denied the ownership of landlady and he had entered in the demised premises as tenant---Tenant had committed default in payment of rent in the present case---Tenant had neither sent rent to the landlady or her husband through money order nor deposited the same in the Court---Tenant was directed to pay the defaulted rent and vacate the demised premises within fifteen days---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Messrs MFMY Industries v. Federation of Pakistan 2015 SCMR 1550 rel.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss.12 & 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVIII, R.5---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Transfer of suit property to the subsequent purchaser---Breach of contract---Compensation, award of---Attachment of property before judgment---Scope---Suit was decreed with the direction to the executant of agreement to sell to execute conveyance deed in favour of plaintiff but no relief of possession was extended---Validity---Plaintiff had paid all the consideration amount to the defendant/builder of housing society---Defendant had sold suit land in favour of subsequent purchaser and he was bound to refund amount so realized by him to the plaintiff---Builder had failed to complete construction by due date and even he had not returned consideration amount received by him to the plaintiff---Subsequent purchaser had possession of suit property and its sale deed---Execution of conveyance deed through Court in favour of plaintiff would render sale deed in favour of defendants as ineffective---Case of plaintiff for specific performance against the builder had been made out but it had become a case of hardship for the subsequent purchaser---Relief of specific performance, even if contract was enforceable, was discretionary and same could be withheld by the Court---When Court had concluded that grant of relief of specific performance had been made out but it would be a case of hardship to other side or unfair and inequitable to any third party who was not at fault then it should compensate the plaintiff---Builder had breached contract and only execution of title document was not specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property when plaintiff was not in possession of suit premises---Execution of title document had to be coupled with delivery of possession of suit property to the plaintiff---Court could not grant decree of possession of suit property to the plaintiff owing to the presence of bona fide purchaser of suit premises---Plaintiff should have been granted relief of specific performance with additional compensation, in circumstances---Court in suit for specific peformance could grant two decrees of compensation combined in one judgment in a suit for specific performance---Order of specific performance might be substituted with compensation for it with additional compensation for breach of contract---High Court observed that court, in the present case, should have passed an adequate decree of compensation both as substitution of specific performance and additional compensation for breach of contract---Decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell through execution of title document against the builder in favour of plaintiff was in the field with no result and there was likelihood that builder would avoid the said decree---High Court passed order for attachment of movable and immovable property of builder who had received consideration amount from the plaintiff but had not returned the same---Plaintiff was entitled for adequate compensation keeping in view escalation in valuation of suit premises and value of currency which had gone down due to inflation in the country---Property of builder would remain attached till the judgment was executable---Second appeal was allowed accordingly. Mohiuddin Molla v. The Province of East Pakistan PLD 1962 SC 119 and Jamil Akhtar and others v. Las Baba and others PLD 2003 SC 494 rel.

Summary: Saqib Ali was convicted and sentenced for offenses under sections 302(b) and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) related to the abduction and murder of Muhammad Hashir. The judgment ultimately concluded that the prosecution evidence is full of doubts and that there are circumstances creating reasonable doubt about the guilt of Saqib Ali. As a result, the court accepted Saqib Ali's appeal, sets aside his conviction and sentence, and acquits him of the charges under Sections 302(b) and 364-A of the PPC, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The court also dismissed the criminal revision filed by Muhammad Azam Butt for the enhancement of Saqib Ali's sentence.

Summary: The appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced under Section 316 P.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala------------In absence of there being any injury; external or internal found on the person of the deceased, nothing could be attributed to the accused--------According to report of Histopathologist, death in this case was occurred by probably vasovagal attack--------In absence of any corroborative evidence and the cause of death being vasovagal attack, the version of the complainant and others could not be believed---------The FIR was anti-timed as the same had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were made over by the I.O. Resultantly, appeal is allowed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9---Possession ofnarcotics---Bail, refusal of---Scope---Accused was alleged to have been found in possessionof two kilograms of charas while 200 grams of charas was also recovered from right side ofhis pocket---High Court observed that where the quantity of 400/500 grams marginallyexceeded the upper limit of 1000 grams, being borderline cases between Cls. (b) & (c) of S.9of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the accused persons were admitted to bail;however, in the present case, besides recovery of 2000 grams of charas 26 grams of crystalwas also recovered from the personal possession of accused, thus, it was not a case ofborderline---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.Noor Khan v. State 2012 MLD 1542; Ghulam Murtaza v. State PLD 2009 Lah. 362and Jamal-ud-Din v. State 2012 SCMR 573 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.497---Bail---Principle---Scope---Court while hearing a bail application is not to keep inview the maximum sentence provided by the statute for the charged offence but the onewhich is likely to be entailed.Socha Gul v. State 2015 SCMR 1077 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: When the application of law has been extended to FATA then there is no question of jurisdiction by the authority and respondent No.3 as well. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 has submitted his application/complaint to respondent No.2, however, the same was entrusted to respondent No.3 under the provision of section 38 of the Nepra Act. No doubt, in case of any dispute pertainingto meter, demand or apparatus, the matter shall be decided by Electric Inspector as provided insection 26 (6) of Electricity Act 1937, During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also criticized the impugned order by contending that under section 12A of the Act, a decision of the single member of the authority is heard and decided by the Tribunal but in the case in hand there was no decision of single member of the authority, thus, without referring the matter to the single member, no decision could be made, as such, the impugned order is perverse and illegal. This argument too is without force because in this case under section 38 (3) of the Act, appeal was preferred to the authority, however, section 12A of the Act provides the right of appeal to the personaggrieved from the decision or the order of single member of the authority or the tribunal. Forconvenience, section 12A is reproduced as under: -12A. Appeal. ? Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Single Member of the Authority or, as the case may be, Tribunal established under section 11 may, within thirty days of the decision or order, prefer an appeal to the Authority in the prescribed manner and the Authority shall decide such appeal within sixty days. This section was inserted by Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power (amendment) Act 2011, by which a remedy is provided to the person aggrieved from the decision of a Single Member or from the decision of tribunal, no such appeal was preferred before the authority under section 12A of the Act, rather there was an appeal under section 38(3) of the Act.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---"Aggrieved person"---Personalright---Locus standi---Public procurement---Scope---Petitioner sought cancellation of tenderfor installation of water-supply on lands allegedly belonging to petitioner and his forefathers---Validity---Petitioner was neither owner of said land nor his name was mentioned inmutation entries and he had no concern with the same; and therefore he did not fall withindefinition of "aggrieved person" in context of Art.199 of Constitution---Sine qua non forinitiation of proceedings under Art. 199 of Constitution was that petitioner should have locusstandi---Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission and others v. Muhammad Arif and others 2011SCMR 848 rel.

Summary: Background:Rizwana Altaf, after working as a school teacher, applied for the position of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate in Sindh. She was appointed to this position in June 2016. However, it was later discovered that she had withheld information about her employment history while applying for this position, leading to the initiation of proceedings for her dismissal.---Issues:Whether Rizwana Altaf deliberately misrepresented her employment history while applying for the position of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate.Whether her failure to disclose her previous employment and misrepresentation of herself as a practicing advocate warranted her dismissal from service.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Rizwana Altaf failed to disclose her employment history and misrepresented herself as a practicing advocate when applying for the position of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate. She deliberately kept certain sections of the application form blank, concealing her employment as a school teacher. Moreover, she misrepresented her status as an advocate by claiming to have practiced for at least two years, which was not the case.Given these deliberate misrepresentations, the Court found that her dismissal was justified under Rule 9(2) of the Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994. This rule allows for the dispensation of services during the probationary period if the employee's conduct is deemed against public interest.The Court dismissed Rizwana Altaf's petition, refusing to interfere with the decision of the Sindh Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal.