Summary: Section of law; 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.(a) In case of divergence of opinion between the two Courts below preference is to be given to the findings of the appellate Court.(b) A male heir cannot waive the right of inheritance of another female heir whatever may be the relation inter se.(c) In case of wrong entries in the revenue record every repetition in the periodical record, provides a recurring cause of action.

Summary: Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal (Appeal dismissed. Conviction Reduced ,)

Summary: The order addresses the petitioner's request for direction to the respondents to appoint them as Junior Clerk or in another suitable post based on the deceased quota, as per Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The court heard the arguments from both parties and reviewed the evidence. The learned Additional Advocate General (A.A.G) explained that while the petitioners were recommended for the post of Junior Clerk, they were not appointed due to the absence of vacancies. The judges disagreed with the non-appointment due to a lack of vacancies as a valid reason. They mentioned that public employment is a source of livelihood and that no citizen should face discrimination in this regard under Article 27 of the Constitution. Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants Rules was established to accommodate the children of deceased civil servants. The court ruled that the petition should be granted. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Sindh was directed to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as Junior Clerk, as recommended earlier, according to Rule 11-A. The appointment was to be made within two months from the receipt of the order.

Summary: The petitioner, seeks confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail. The case involved allegations of house trespass, causing injuries, and an offense under Sections 337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-F(v)/337-L(2)/34 PPC. The document discussed the medical examination of the complainant/injured and points out issues related to the delay in filing the FIR, the conduct of medico-legal examinations, and the necessity of adherence to established procedures. The judge emphasizes the importance of proper documentation by medical officers, especially when indicating the possibility of injury fabrication. The judge ultimately granted ad interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, considering factors such as the confirmation of bail for co-accused and the complainant's non-appearance before the District Standing Medical Board, suggesting a possible cover-up. The document concluded with specific directions, including requirements for medical officers issuing Medico Legal Certificates and potential actions against officers involved in misconduct.

Summary: The petitioner sought the declaration of the impugned order as illegal, void ab-initio, against the law, and requested its setting aside, along with the dismissal of the application filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 22-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The petitioner's counsel argued that the order was contrary to facts and law. The respondent No. 4's application alleged misappropriation of cheques, but the police report favored the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the Justice of Peace did not consider the favorable police report, making the order liable to be set aside. The court considered the documents, including the impugned order and the police report. It found that the respondent No. 4's application accused the petitioner of misappropriation, but the police report contradicted these claims. The Justice of Peace had not adequately considered the police report, and the petitioner had not been informed about respondent No. 4's arrest in a related case. The court cited legal precedents emphasizing the importance of considering police reports and the need for tangible reasons if deviating from them. It concluded that the order was invalid and set it aside. However, it allowed respondent No. 4 to pursue alternative remedies, such as filing a private complaint, without being influenced by the court's observations or orders.

Summary: S.23---Civil service---Donation of land for construction of school in consideration ofemployment---Scope---Petitioners applied for appointment against vacant posts of Class-IVand appeared in test and interview but they were not recommended by District RecruitmentCommittee---Complaint by the petitioners before Complaint Redressal Cell was accepted butthey were not appointed against the posts in question---Contention of petitioners was thatthey had donated land to the school and on this count they were entitled for appointment---Validity---No post could be filled on the recommendation of private person---Allegedagreement being not according to law had no legal sanctity---Donation of land inconsideration of employment would amount to sale of a public office---Petitioners could notclaim specific performance of void agreement---Constitutional petition was dismissed, incircumstances.

Summary: Background:Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat, the respondent, inherited land measuring 2722-Kanal 12 Marla from her father's estate as a minor. Upon her return from the United States in 1989, she discovered that her share of the land had been unlawfully mutated in favor of her nephew when she was still a minor. The appellants, claiming to be bona fide purchasers, contested her claim to the land.---Issues:Whether the mutation of the land in favor of the nephew when both parties were minors was valid.Whether the appellants, as innocent purchasers, should be held responsible for the wrongful transaction.Whether the respondent's claim to the land was maintainable despite her being out of physical possession.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the mutation of the land in favor of the nephew when both parties were minors was void ab initio. The court emphasized that Ms. Khilat's entitlement to the land, as a female heir in a Muslim household, was protected by law. The court also noted procedural irregularities in the mutation process, rendering it invalid. The appellants' argument that they should not be held responsible for the wrongful transaction was rejected, citing the principle of caveat emptor. The court further held that the respondent's claim to the land was maintainable, as she was deemed to be in possession as a co-sharer in the estate. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the decision of the High Court was upheld.---Citations/Precedents:Fazal Ellahi deceased through legal heirs Vs. Mst. Zainab Bi (2019 SCMR 1930)Khan Muhammad through LRs & others Vs. Mst. Khatoon Bibi & others (2017 SCMR 1476)Mahmood Khan Vs. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah (2015 SCMR 869)Mst. Gohar Khanum Vs. Mst. Jamila Jan (2014 SCMR 801)Rehmat Ullah & others Vs. Saleh Khan & others (2007 SCMR 729)Arshad Khan Vs. Resham Jan and others (2005 SCMR 1859)Ghulam Ali & 2 other Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1)

Summary: Background:In Civil Petition No. 1170 of 2018, the petitioner, Dr. Azad Hussain, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13.02.2018 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed his appeal (Appeal No. 540 of 2018) filed under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's request for extension of his lien beyond the maximum period of three years is permissible under Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974.Whether the petitioner's request to return to his parent department was appropriately considered.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Rules clearly states that the maximum period for retaining lien in the parent department is three years and cannot be extended. The language of the rule is mandatory, and neither the department nor the Service Tribunal has the authority to extend this period. Additionally, the petitioner's request to return to his parent department was not adequately presented before the Service Tribunal and lacked merit as he had moved to another university without proper authorization. The court found no legal or procedural error in the Service Tribunal's judgment and refused to grant leave to appeal.---Citations/Precedents:Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, Rule 7-APunjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, Section 4Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Article 212(3)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Delay of four hours in lodging FIR.Motive is a double edged weapon .Benefit of doubts, appeal allowed.