Summary: Background:Muhammad Mansha (the appellant) filed a civil appeal against the judgment dated 11.05.2010 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in RFA No.592 of 2006. The appeal pertains to the attachment and sale of a property by the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (respondent No. 1) in execution proceedings initiated for the recovery of a debt against respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3.---Issues:Whether the sale of the property by respondent No. 3, after the pronouncement of a judgment and decree by the Banking Court, without prior permission, is void under Section 23(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the 2001 Ordinance).Whether the sale deed executed by respondent No. 3 in favor of the appellant prior to the promulgation of the 2001 Ordinance is valid and can be challenged under Section 23(2) of the 2001 Ordinance.---Holding/Reasoning:The sale of the property by respondent No. 3, after the pronouncement of the judgment and decree by the Banking Court, without prior written permission, is indeed void under Section 23(2) of the 2001 Ordinance. However, it is crucial to note that the judgment and decree must be rendered by the Banking Court established under the 2001 Ordinance.In this case, the judgment and decree sought to be enforced by respondent No. 1 were rendered under the repealed Act and pronounced by a Banking Court established under the said Act. Therefore, this judgment and decree cannot be invoked to enforce Section 23(2) of the 2001 Ordinance.Additionally, the sale deed executed by respondent No. 3 in favor of the appellant was completed before the promulgation of the 2001 Ordinance. As the 2001 Ordinance does not provide for retrospective application, the transaction cannot be challenged under Section 23(2) of the 2001 Ordinance.Outcome:The court found the order of the Banking Court not in accordance with the law and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court.

Summary: PLJ 2020 Lahore (Note) 191 [Multan Bench Multan] Present Ch Muhammad Masood Jahangir J GHULAM YASEEN and 12 others - - Petitioners versus MOHAMMAD AALAM and 8 others - - Respondents CR No 1241 of 2016 decided on 09102018 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - Ss 115 12 (2) - - Specific Relief Act 1877 S 42 - - Suit for declaration - - Dismissed - - Appeal - - Allowed - - Rights and interest of immovable property - - Element of fraud - - Challenge to - - Lapse on part of petitioners for not examining any of witnesses to prove element of fraud was a Strong factor for declining their application - - Counsel for petitioners also failed to justify said lacuna on their part - - Moreover as observed supra suit was instituted and during its pendency petitioners Purchased property through aforenoted mutation which is squarely hit by rule of lis pendens - - Counsel for petitioners has failed to point out any illegality perversity or jurisdictional defect in impugned order calling for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction - - Resultantly instant Civil Revision being devoid of any force is dismissed [Para 3 4] A C Transfer of property Act 1882 (IV of 1882) - - - - - - S 52 - - Rights interest of parties - - Immovable property - - Ambit and import of aforesaid provision is to protect and safeguard parties to suit as well as their rights and interest qua immovable property involved therein against any alienation made by either of parties of that property during pendency of litigation in favour of a third person and transferee of property shall acquire title of property subject to final decision of litigation hence third party who acquires any interest or right in property under litigation even for value or through an exchange of value without notice of pendency of suit shall be bound by result of suit stricto sensu in all respects as his transferor would be bound - - It is well established by now that subsequent transferee therefore does not acquire any independent legal title and he has to swim and sink with his transferor - - Petition was dismissed [Para 3] B Malik Ahmad Shahzad Advocate for Petitioners Mr Muhammad Faisal Bashir Chaudhry Advocate for Respondents Mr Tahir Mehmood Advocate for Applicant in CMNo 79 of 2018 and 80 of 2018Judgement Result:Petition was dismissed

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit for declaration-cum-perpetual injunction concerning land comprising survey Nos. 243 and 685, measuring 206 kanal, situated at Tarolla, Village Dahwara, Tehsil and District Bhimber. The Senior Civil Judge, Bhimber, rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, on June 20, 2017. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the District Judge, Bhimber, was dismissed on August 21, 2017, and the second appeal to the High Court also failed. The appellant then filed this appeal with the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, by the trial court was appropriate. 2- Whether the civil courts have jurisdiction over disputes concerning Shamilat deh land. 3- Whether the lower courts properly applied judicial mind in their decisions. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the trial court's order was not a judicial order and that the appellate courts unjustifiably upheld this order. The reasons given by the High Court were deemed to pre-judge the matter, especially concerning factual aspects that require proof, such as which party is in possession of the suit property. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that for rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, the main consideration should be the contents of the plaint and not the defense's version. The Court noted that landowners are entitled to retain possession of Shamilat deh land subject to partition. The appellant sought protection of his possession in the Shamilat deh land and did not seek to restrain revenue courts from conducting partition proceedings nor claim a decree of title. Thus, the Court found that the rejection of the plaint was unwarranted. ----Citations/Precedents: Rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, must consider the plaint's contents. Landowners' rights to retain possession of Shamilat deh land.

Summary: Background: The appellants filed a suit against Mst. Aisha Bi, Muhammad Yaseen, Muhammad Miskeen, Muhammad Amin, and others regarding compensation for land acquired by the Collector Land Acquisition for the Mangla Dam Raising Project. The appellants claimed that the compensation for their land was wrongly awarded to the respondents. They argued that the land in question was in equal shares among them and others, and the compensation was incorrectly allocated to respondents No.1 to 7. ----Issues: 1- Whether the compensation for the acquired land was correctly awarded to the respondents. 2- Whether the sale deed executed by Muhammad Malik in favor of Muhammad Zaman was beyond Malik's share and therefore invalid. 3- Whether the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence and made a lawful decision. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Correct Award of Compensation: The appellants argued that the compensation was wrongfully awarded to respondents No.1 to 7. However, the courts found that the compensation was appropriately allocated based on the evidence presented. The appellants failed to prove their claim that Muhammad Malik sold land beyond his share to Muhammad Zaman. --Validity of Sale Deed: The appellants contended that Muhammad Malik’s sale of land to Muhammad Zaman exceeded Malik’s share. However, the record, including the Jamabandi and testimony from Nisar Ahmed, Patwari, confirmed that the sale deed was executed properly and within Malik’s share. The appellants did not challenge the sale deed within the appropriate timeframe or provide sufficient evidence to prove it was beyond Malik's share. --Evaluation of Evidence: Both the Reference Judge and the High Court carefully reviewed the evidence, including the revenue records and witness testimonies. The findings were based on substantial evidence presented by the parties. The courts determined that the transfer of land was legal and valid, and the compensation was correctly awarded to respondents No.1 to 7. ----Citations/Precedents Reliance on revenue records (Jamabandi) to determine land ownership and shares. The principle that unchallenged sale deeds within the statutory period are considered valid.

Summary: Background: The appellant, filed a complaint at Police Station City Kotli on 28.07.2010, alleging that Muhammad Irfan and Muhammad Razzaq, the respondents, were cutting a tree from his land and, when confronted, they abused and threatened him. The police registered an FIR under sections 34, 447, and 427 of the APC, and the case proceeded to the Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate 1st Class Kotli. After necessary proceedings, the trial court acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of the doubt. The appellant then filed an appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed on 05.03.2019. Consequently, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the trial court and the High Court properly appreciated the evidence. 3- Whether the acquittal of the respondents was consistent with the law and facts of the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The appellant contended that the prosecution had proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt through the statements of eyewitnesses. However, the trial court and the High Court found contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, leading to the respondents' acquittal. --Appreciation of Evidence: The trial court meticulously evaluated the evidence, referring to and discussing the statements of all seven witnesses. The conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt was upheld by the High Court. Both courts concluded that the prosecution's evidence contained significant contradictions and inconsistencies. --Consistency with Law and Facts: The trial court's judgment extended the benefit of the doubt to the respondents, a decision upheld by the High Court. The judgments were based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence and adhered to legal principles. The appellant failed to demonstrate any significant misreading or non-reading of evidence that would justify overturning the acquittal. ----Citations/Precedents: The principle that acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence. The requirement of strong and legal grounds to recall an acquittal order.

Summary: Sentence reduced---Background: This case pertains to a violent incident that occurred during a procession against the Mangla Dam Raising Project on 30.03.2009. The procession, led by a political figure, was disrupted by a group of armed individuals. The ensuing clash resulted in the deaths of three individuals and severe injuries to others. The accused were charged with offenses under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 324 of the APC. The trial court convicted several of the accused, sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment and ordering compensation. The Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court later enhanced some of these sentences upon appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of the accused. 2- Whether the trial court and High Court properly assessed and weighed the evidence, including the motives and credibility of witnesses. 3- Whether the enhancement of sentences by the High Court was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court partly accepted the appeals filed by the convicts, modifying the sentences to the time already served. The Court dismissed the cross appeals for enhancement of the sentences. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the primary motive beyond a reasonable doubt. The alleged motives included a land dispute and a dispute over leading the procession, neither of which were convincingly established. The Court noted the lack of independent witnesses in a thickly populated area and questioned the credibility of related witnesses without independent corroboration. The evidence presented by the prosecution, including the recovery of firearms and the number of bullet casings, was inconsistent and lacked strong corroboration. The Court observed several procedural lapses, such as delayed recording of witness statements and substitution of witnesses, which raised doubts about the integrity of the prosecution's case. Given the mitigating factors and the doubts raised, the Court deemed it inappropriate to uphold the original and enhanced sentences, opting instead to reduce the sentences to the time already served. Outcome: The sentences were reduced to the time already served, and the convicts were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. ----Citations/Precedents: Mushtaq Hussain v. The State [2011 SCMR 1048] Mahmood Ahmed and 3 others v. The State [1995 SCMR 127] Naseer Ahmed v. The State [2011 P.Cr.LJ 1040] Tasawar Hussain v. The State [2016 SCR 373] Muhammad Khalid and another v. State and another [2018 SCR 356] Waseem Hussain and 2 others v. Muhammad Rafique and another [2017 SCR 428] Muhammad Rafique v. Aurangzeb and another [2015 SCR 974] Muhammad Shabir v. The State [2004 P.Cr.LJ 1030] Abdul Ghafoor and another v. The State [1999 P.Cr.LJ 1245] Muhammad Hanif Khan and another v. State and another [PLJ 2001 SC (AJK) 166] Ghazanfar Ali v. The State another [2015 SCR 1042] Azhar Aziz v. The State [1996 SCR 225] Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat and another [2007 SCR 1] Said Akbar and another v. Sardar Ghulam Hussain Khan and another [2015 SCR 1487] Javid Azam v. Muhammad Saleem and 10 others [1997 P.Cr.L.J. SC (AJK) 1865] Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Zaman [PLD 2005 SC 484] Mst. Mumtaz Begum v. Ghulam Farid and another [2003 SCMR 647] Muhammad Bakhsh v. Jamadar Rahim Khan through legal heirs and 2 others [1996 MLD 1681] Liaqat Hussain and another v. Ulfat Khan and another [2007 SCR 39] Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. Muhammad Bashir and 5 others [2010 SCR 208] Niamat and others v. The State [PLD 1961 Lah. 1] Chikkarange Gowda and others v. The State of Mysore [PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 133] The State through Muhammad Afzal & others v. Waheed Iqbal [2005 P.Cr.L.J 1384] Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State & 2 others [2014 SCR 121] Muhammad Shabir vs. The State [2003 SCR 486]

Summary: Background: The appellants, were accused by the respondents, of committing offenses under sections 457, 427, and 506(2) of the APC, read with section 14 of the EHA. An FIR was lodged on 17.03.2009, but the police referred the matter for cancellation. Subsequently, the respondents filed a private complaint on 06.12.2014. The appellants moved for acquittal under section 249-A of the Cr.P.C., which was granted by the trial court on 29.02.2016. The respondents appealed, and the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court remanded the case for fresh proceedings on 28.05.2019. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion under section 249-A of the Cr.P.C. by acquitting the appellants without hearing the complainant or the state. 2- Whether the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court correctly remanded the case for fresh proceedings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Proper Exercise of Discretion Under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C.: The trial court acquitted the appellants under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., without hearing the complainant or the state. Section 249-A mandates that a magistrate can acquit an accused at any stage if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused, and recording reasons, it is determined that the charge is groundless or there is no probability of conviction. The trial court's failure to hear the complainant and the state before acquitting the appellants was a violation of this mandatory requirement. --Remand for Fresh Proceedings: The Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court identified this procedural defect and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh proceedings. The High Court's decision was based on the non-compliance with the statutory requirement to hear the complainant and the state. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court. The Court affirmed that the trial court's acquittal of the appellants without hearing the complainant and the state was contrary to section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The remand for fresh proceedings was appropriate to rectify this procedural defect. The trial court was directed to decide the complaint within two months. ----Citations/Precedents Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., which outlines the conditions under which a magistrate can acquit an accused. The principle that an order under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., must involve hearing the prosecutor, the accused, and recording reasons.

Summary: Background:In C.Misc. No.14/2020, Haji Walayat Khan & Ors. filed a review petition under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C) against an order issued by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. The impugned order directed the respondents to include the Gilgit-Baltistan Provincial Government and Public Works Department (PWD) as defendants in Civil First Appeal No. 01/2020.----Issues:Whether the direction to include the government as defendants was justified.Whether the review petition presented valid grounds for review.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court reasoned that the Provincial Government of Gilgit-Baltistan and its departments were essential parties to the suit. Without their involvement, no effective decree could be passed. Therefore, the direction to include them as defendants was deemed justified.The court also emphasized that the scope of a review petition is limited to correcting errors in judgment, not reconsidering decisions. As the review petition failed to provide valid grounds for review, it was dismissed.The outcome of the case was the dismissal of the review petition, and the impugned order issued on 04-01-2020 was upheld.---Citations/Precedents:Lahore High Court judgment (2003 C.L.C. 1773) regarding the scope and limitations of review petitions.

Summary: Bail granted----Background:Imran Ullah and Tahir Ali, the petitioners/accused, filed a bail petition in the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No.93/2019 under Section 9-C CNSA 1997, alleging possession of contraband charas. The prosecution claimed that the complainant, UP/H.C. Nusrat Khan, recovered contraband from the petitioners' vehicle during a snap check at a Levies Check Post.----Issues:Whether the petitioners' bail petition should be granted considering the circumstances of the case, including the competency of the complainant to lodge FIR and conduct search and arrest.Whether the recovery of contraband from the petitioners' joint possession and the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report warrant further inquiry and affect the admissibility of evidence.Whether the offense under Section 9-C CNSA 1997 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C, thereby affecting the entitlement to bail.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the record. It noted the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report despite the elapse of two months since the arrest. Additionally, it found issues regarding the competency of the complainant to lodge the FIR and conduct the search and arrest, as per Section 21 of the Control of Narcotics and Substance Act 1997. The court concluded that further inquiry was warranted given the joint recovery from the petitioners' vehicle and the procedural irregularities. Consequently, the bail petition was accepted, and the petitioners were granted bail upon furnishing bail bonds.----Citations/Precedents:Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997Section 21 of the Control of Narcotics and Substance Act 1997Section 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code