Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Sub-section (1) of Section 155 Cr.P.C provides that when a non-cognizable offence is reported to the local police, the local police is bound to enter the report in a specific register and refer the complainant to Magistrate and only the Magistrate is empowered to order for investigation or otherwise in the case, while Justice of Peace is not empowered to direct the local police to proceed against the accused. When the police investigate a case of non-cognizable offence without permission of a Magistrate, such act of the police would amount to violation of mandatory direction of law and its continuation shall be an abuse of process of law.

Summary: Impugned order had been recorded in a Sketchy and slipshod manner and without application of Judicial mind. Discussing essential facts of Prosecution evidence and other incriminating material collected by the investigation officer was necessary before extending concession of Bail.

Summary: Sections of law; 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and 2-B CPC(a) A civil Court while deciding a second application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2-B CPC cannot be deemed to have been bound by the earlier decisions made on the first application filed for the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 CPC.

Summary: Suit for possession through preemption was concurrently dismissed.Held: (1) Not only the petitioner but the witness in whose Baithak talab-e- muathibat was made, is not clear about the timing, rather he has contradicted the narrative contained in the plaint with respect to time of knowledge.(2) Under the law, mere sending of notice of talb-i-Ishhad by pre-emptor is not sufficient and acknowledgement due slip must be signed by the vendee and not any other person.(3) Scribe of notice talb-i-Ishhad was not produced in the witness box whichwas the requirement of law.(Revision petition was dismissed).

Summary: 1. A wife would lose her dower only if she seeks dissolution of marriage on the sole ground of Khullah, but not when she urges other ground in support of her case unless the other grounds are not proved.2. Her entitlement to receive dower or its retention would remain unaffected and intact if she was able to prove other grounds like cruelty of the husband.

Summary: The case involved a dispute over the deposit of fines under Section 9 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The petitioner rented premises from the father of respondent No.1, and after the latter's death, the respondents disconnected utilities over a rent dispute. The petitioner had previously deposited 5% fine as ordered by the Special Judge (Rent) in a prior application. When the petitioner filed a new application seeking restoration of utility services, the Special Judge (Rent) again ordered the deposit of 5% fine, considering it a fresh application. The petitioner argued that since he had already paid the fine in the previous application, imposing it again was unjust and amounted to double jeopardy. The court, however, held that Section 9 of the Act does not indicate a one-time fine and emphasized that the fine served to encourage compliance with the Act's provisions. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the defect in tenancy is not cured by a one-time payment of the fine.

Summary: The case involved an appellant whose plot was cancelled due to default in payments. The appellant filed a suit for declaration, specific performance, and mandatory injunction, claiming readiness to fulfill the contract while asserting that the respondent failed in necessary development. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court accepted the respondent's appeal. The appellant argued timely payments, while the respondent contended the cancellation was justified. The court, after examining evidence, found the default in payments established. It emphasized that time was of the essence based on the agreement's terms. The court also addressed legal principles related to specific performance and upheld the appellate court's decision, dismissing the appeal.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking her appointment based on the Death Assistance Package after the post became vacant due to her mother's death. The High Court dismissed the writ petition through the judgment dated July 23, 2018. Consequently, the appellant appealed to a higher court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant is entitled to an appointment under the Death Assistance Package despite the grade restriction. 2- Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was lawful. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The learned counsel for the appellant argued the case but could not identify any illegality in the impugned judgment. The appellant sought appointment in grade B-16, whereas the Death Assistance Package only provides for appointments in grades BPS-1 to 15. The court directed the departmental authority to consider the appellant's case for appointment in grade BPS-1 to 15 on sympathetic grounds if possible. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. ----Citations/Precedents: Judgment dated July 23, 2018 (impugned judgment) Death Assistance Package provisions

Summary: Background: The appellants, WAPDA and its officials, appealed against a judgment dated April 8, 2019, from the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court. The case involves the respondents, who had their houses acquired by the Collector Land Acquisition for the Mangla Dam Raising Project. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the respondents sought enhancement of the compensation through reference applications. ----Issues: 1- Whether the compensation for the respondents' acquired houses was fairly assessed considering their commercial and potential value. 2- Whether the High Court's enhancement of the compensation was justified based on the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court enhanced the compensation for the respondents' houses, finding that the initial assessment did not adequately consider their commercial and potential value. The learned Reference Judge initially increased the compensation, but the respondents sought further enhancement, which the High Court granted. The appellants argued that the compensation had been properly assessed by a committee, but the High Court found that the evidence provided by the respondents, including estimates from a building contractor, was not sufficiently rebutted by the appellants. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the enhanced compensation was neither arbitrary nor fanciful. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. ----Citations/Precedents: Judgment dated April 8, 2019, in Civil Appeal No. 324 of 2010 by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court Award No. 287/2009 issued on April 1, 2009 Reference Judge's judgment and decree dated June 24, 2010 Case titled Chief Engineer WAPDA vs. Muhammad Ilyas & others announced on April 23, 2019