Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Intra Court Appeal in WP 2385-17(Service Matter, Reinstatement.)

Summary: The petitioners in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case could not establish any sort of encroachment by the respondents over the disputed property rather they absolutely failed to prove the exact Khasra number where the house of respondents exists. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are trespassers in the disputed property and trespassers have no right to seek legal cover from the Court but this contention of the petitioners has no force because they have miserably failed to prove the respondents as trespassers through any tangible evidence.

Summary: The respondents, after accepting the offer, stepped into the shoes of highest bidders and in the light of law laid down by the superior Courts of the country, mere acceptance of offer and deposit of 1/4 th of the auction money, would not vest any right in favour of the respondents, unless and until the auction is approved by the competent authority.Bare perusal of Section 14 of the Act would make it clear that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in the matters wherein the Federal Government or any officer appointed under the Act is empowered to determine. Learned appellate court, while deciding this issue, based findings on mere presumptions that the cancellation of auction seemed to be the outcome of backdoor activity of Mr. Fareed Khan and the defendants, however, since there is no evidence on record in this respect, therefore, the findings arrived at on the basis of mere presumptions cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Since a specific procedure under the Act is provided to an aggrieved person, in the light of Section10 to Section 16 of the Act, therefore the learned trial court rightly concluded that civil court has got no jurisdiction in such like cases, and the findings of learned appellate court are liable to be reversed.

Summary: Under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, attested , in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant, attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment or his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant .Another important aspect of the case is that at the time of Talab- i-Ishhad, Talab-i-Muwathibat was not repeated, either by the plaintiff or by his witnesses. They stated that the petition writer scribed the notice which was signed by them and thereafter it was dispatched to the defendant.

Summary: Under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, attested , in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant, attested by two or more witnesses each of whom hasseen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from theexecutant a personal acknowledgment or his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant . Another important aspect of the case is that at the time of Talab- i-Ishhad, Talab-i-Muwathibat was not repeated, either by the plaintiff or by his witnesses. They stated that the petition writer scribed the notice which was signed by them and thereafter it was dispatched to thedefendant.

Summary: Sections of law; Order XV (A) CPC, sections 18 (b) of Specific Relief Act 1877, sections 73, 74 of Contract Act 1872(a) Disposal of contested cases by way of summary judgment was introduced in our civil legal system after realization that protracted litigation has been costing the people heavy in terms of money and time, beside bringing the system of civil adjudication under stark criticism for delays, which is normally caused in disposal of cases.(b) Courts of law have always been taking restitutionary measures whether or not there has been privety of contract or requisite clauses of the contract to said effect, when they found the phenomena of unjust enrichment.

Summary: The prosecution's case revolved around the appellant allegedly setting fire to Naheed Akhtar, causing severe burn injuries. Naheed Akhtar, a resident of Norway, had come to Pakistan to construct a house, and the motive behind the attack was stated to be financial disputes. The appellant claimed innocence, asserting a false implication due to family disputes and an attempted suicide by the victim. The court analyzed the evidence, emphasizing the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration. Despite the failure to prove the charge of murder, the court concluded that the appellant caused burn injuries to the victim. Consequently, the court set aside the murder conviction but found the appellant guilty under section 336-B PPC (causing hurt by corrosive substance) and sentenced him to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 114---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Review---Scope---Petitioner sought review of order passed by High Court whereby his constitutional petitionwas dismissed---Validity---Impugned order did not suffer from any error or mistakewarranting review---All points raised by the counsel for the petitioner wereaddressed/answered by the High Court after going through entire record with care andcaution---No case for review was made out---Review petition was dismissed.Daewoo Corporation v. Zila Council, Jhang and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1213; MessrsPakistan International Airlines Karachi v. Inayat Rasool 2004 SCMR 1737; Majid Mahmoodv. Muhammad Shafi 2008 SCMR 554; Mirza Shahjehan Haider Gorgani v. Chairman,Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and others 2008 SCMR 575 and Haji MuhammadBoota and others v. Member (Revenue) BOR and others 2010 SCMR 1049 ref.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 114---Review---Scope---Scope of review is very limited and review petition is notmaintainable on those points which have been decided one way or the other---Any disputewhich has already been resolved cannot be reviewed, even if the same has been resolvedillegally---Review cannot be allowed to reopen the case for the purpose of affordingrehearing of the points already resolved.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 114---Review---Scope---Exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a rehearing ofthe matter and as finality is attached to the order, a decision, even though it is erroneous perse, would not be a ground to justify its review---Before an error can be a ground for review,it is necessary that it must be one which is apparent on the face of the record, that is, it mustbe so manifest, so clear that no Court could permit such an error to remain on record---Be itan error of fact or of law, it must be an error which is self evident and floating on the surfaceand does not require any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 114---Review---Scope---Where a Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decisionon a point of law or fact while disposing of a petition or an appeal, review of such judgmentor error cannot be obtained on grounds that the Court took an erroneous view or that anotherview on reconsideration is possible---Review cannot be allowed on the ground of discoveryof some new material, if such material was available at the time of hearing of appeal orpetition but not produced.(e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 114---Review---Scope---Unless and until there is an error or a mistake on the face ofthe record or for that matter some new and important matter or evidence has been discovereda review application is incompetent.Daewoo Corporation v. Zila Council, Jhang and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1213; MessrsPakistan International Airlines Karachi v. Inayat Rasool 2004 SCMR 1737; Majid Mahmoodv. Muhammad Shafi 2008 SCMR 554; Mirza Shahjehan Haider Gorgani v. Chairman,Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and others 2008 SCMR 575 and Haji MuhammadBoota and others v. Member (Revenue) BOR and others 2010 SCMR 1049 ref.

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, along with his sister Samina Bibi, was indicted for the murder of Mehboob Alam and the attempted murder of Hakeem Nazeer Ahmad on February 22, 2008, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Karana, District Sargodha, Pakistan. The incident occurred during a gathering of family elders to settle disputes between Mehboob Alam and his wife, who was the sister of the petitioner. During the gathering, the petitioner allegedly targeted Mehboob Alam with a .30 caliber pistol, resulting in Mehboob Alam's death and the injury of Hakeem Nazeer Ahmad.---Issues:Whether the conviction of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and section 324 of the same code is justified.Whether the alteration of the death penalty into imprisonment for life by the High Court is appropriate.Whether the acquittal of Samina Bibi, the petitioner's sister, is justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased was established. Despite the absence of casings from the crime scene, forensic evidence confirmed the presence of human blood, validating the occurrence of the incident. The autopsy report corroborated the use of the weapon recovered from the petitioner. The prompt reporting and subsequent medical examinations were deemed adequate. Hakeem Nazeer Ahmad, an independent witness, testified to the events and was found credible. The prosecution's evidence, coupled with witness testimony, left no room for doubt regarding the petitioner's guilt. The defense's alternate theories were rejected as unsubstantiated. The courts below were deemed to have acted within the bounds of the law, justifying the conviction and the alteration of the death penalty to life imprisonment. The sentence was considered appropriate.