Summary: Seeking direction to setaside the termination of order dated 15Summary Pending10Summary Pending2018 from membership of competition commisstion

Summary: Seeking direction to set aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 regarding removal of service

Summary: (1) It is significant to mention that as the complainant/ respondent No. 1 has failed to prove his earlier possession of the disputed property, in the same manner she could not prove her dispossession form the suit property as alleged by her. The witnesses produced by complainant/ respondent No. 1 have not contributed much to the factum of dispossession as alleged in the complaint, therefore, provisions of section 3(2) of the illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would not attract.

Summary: (1) Legally, Partition of property means to bring proceeding in the Court to force the physical division of property or to get separate the shares of any joint owner form the joint property. partition is normally commenced by one of the co-owner filling an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction by impleading all the joint owners. Any person with an existing interest in the property may bring the action for partition and vice-versa against whom the partition is sought. By not impleading petitioner in partition application irrespective of his share would render the entire process in nullity.

Summary: O XXVI Rule 9 and 14(2) C.P.C. Record transpires that after submission of commission report, objection were filed but without recording the statement of local commission not only the objection were rejected but also the report was confirmed. The confirmation of report-e- commission was subject to the examination of local commission. Judgments and decrees of both the courts below were set aside and the case was remanded to the rial court with the direction to examine the local commission and then decide the case in accordance with law.Admission against the fact:- Such admission could not be considered to have any binding effect against the party making it.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution. (a) A deputationist has got no vested right of retention in service of borrowing department after expiry of his period of deputation, particularly when the borrowing department does not need his services.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution and section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.(a)Where the basic order is without jurisdiction, void, unlawful or obtained on fraud, the exception to exercise of powers of locus poenitentia,cannot be invoked.

Summary: Admittedly the AWKUM is not offering the Master in Public Health in its main campus as the universities of Pakistan and other degree awarding institutes are bound by the academic curriculum and criteria specified by the Higher Education commission: therefore, the AWKUM cannot go beyond the policy of the HEC. It is the policy that if a university is not offering a program at its principal sear, then the same program cannot be allowed to carry out in the affiliated institutions. In view of the policy of the HEC respondent university has directed the petitioner institute to stop new admissions on the MPH, however, no embargo was placed on the already admitted students to complete their MPH degree and thereby, their rights were protected.

Summary: PLJ 2020 Quetta 16 (DB) Present Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Abdul Hameed Baloch JJ LAL BIBI and 10 others - - Petitioners Versus ABDUL REHMAN and 8 others - - Respondents CP No 164 of 2018 decided on 182019 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) Ss 31 42 54 - - Civil Procedure Code 1908 S 12 (2) - - Suits for declaration correction of mutation entries partition and permanent injunction - - Suit No 11702000 was decreed while Suit No 172000 was disposed of - - Consolidation of suits - - Consolidated judgment - - Appeal filed by stranger - - Accepted - - Case was remanded to trial Court for re - writing of judgment - - Submission of compromise deed - - Both suits were decided on basis of compromise - - Filling of application under Section 12 (2) of CPC - - Dismissed - - Filling of civil revision - - Accepted - - Matter was remanded to trial Court - - Opportunity of hearing - - Framing of issues - - Challenge to - - Revisional Court has accepted petition by remanding matter to trial Court with direction to frame issue by affording opportunity of leading evidence of parties and to decide application under Section 12 (2) CPC in accordance with law - - It is necessary to provide reasonable opportunity to parties to produce their evidence - - Although it is not requirement of law to frame issue in every case under Section 12 (2) CPC but in certain cases issues are to be framed and evidence is required for reaching at a just conclusion - - Counsel for petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality and irregularity in impugned order passed by Revisional Court - - Petition was dismissed [Pp 20 21] A B C 2015 SCMR 1708 ref Mr Mumtaz Hussain Baqri Advocate for Petitioners Ms Syed Muhammad Tahir Gul Bibi and Taj Bibi Advocates for Respondents Nos 2 and 7Judgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: Background: The appellant, a contractor, was awarded a project for the construction of Tanallian Bridge and approach road in Tehsil Dhirkot. Due to local clashes, the construction was forcibly stopped, and the site plan was shifted, causing the appellant a loss of Rs.15,00,000. The appellant approached the Ombudsman of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, who ordered the Secretary Local Government to pay the appellant Rs.15,00,000. The order was not complied with, leading the appellant to file a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2- Whether the non-compliance with the Ombudsman's order constitutes a violation of law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of AJ&K held that the High Court failed to apply proper judicial mind and erroneously dismissed the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s findings, which had attained finality due to the respondents' failure to challenge them, were not complied with, thus constituting a clear violation of the statutory provisions of the Ombudsman Act, 1992. The Court noted that the respondents did not provide any reason for the non-compliance, nor did they inform the Ombudsman within the specified time. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, accepted the writ petition, and issued a writ of mandamus to the respondents to implement the Ombudsman's findings. ----Citations/Precedents: Chaudhry Ali Muhammad Chacha vs. Azad Government & 4 others [2006 SCR 232] Established the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing before taking any action that affects the rights of an individual. Ombudsman Act, 1992 Section 11(2): Obligates respondents to inform the Ombudsman within a specified time about the action taken on the recommendations or the reasons for non-compliance. Section 22: States that the award of cost and compensation by the Ombudsman is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The appeal was accepted, and the respondents were directed to implement the Ombudsman's order dated 01.09.2015.