Summary: The petitions challenge the legality and validity of orders by the Returning Officer, who refused to accept party lists for candidates contesting seats reserved for women and non-Muslims due to a one-day delay in submission. The court refers to Section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017, which stipulates the time for submitting these lists with the Returning Officer to confirm a candidate's affiliation with a political party. The court emphasizes that the purpose of this requirement is to establish party membership for candidates seeking reserved seats.The court notes that a delay of one day, resulting from unavoidable circumstances, should not be sufficient grounds to deprive petitioners of including their names in the list of eligible candidates. Additionally, the court highlights that there are no penal consequences for the non-submission of party lists for reserved seats. The proportional allocation of reserved seats based on the general election results and the non-transferability of such seats are also emphasized.Consequently, the court decides to condone the one-day delay, accepting all the writ petitions and setting aside the orders passed by the Returning Officer and the Appellate Tribunal. The court directs that the party lists for reserved seats should be accepted, and candidates should be declared and included in the list of eligible candidates.

Summary: Muhammad Zaheer had approached the police with an application for the registration of an FIR against the petitioners, alleging medical negligence that contributed to the death of his brother, Muhammad Azeem. When the application did not lead to the registration of an FIR, Muhammad Zaheer invoked the jurisdiction of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace through a petition under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The case had undergone several stages, including an inquiry by the Punjab Healthcare Commission, which found the petitioners guilty of medical negligence.The petitioners contested the order, arguing that no cognizable offense warranting the registration of an FIR was made out, and that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace passed the order mechanically. They contended that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Punjab Healthcare Commission, and that double jeopardy was applicable, barring criminal proceedings after facing the Commission.Justice Ch. Abdul Aziz, after a detailed analysis, dismissed the petitions. He concluded that the allegations of medical negligence, as per the findings of the Punjab Healthcare Commission, fell within the purview of 'Qatl-bis-Sabab' as defined in Section 321, PPC. He emphasized that the truth or otherwise of the accusations should be determined during the investigative process, and each case of death during medical treatment does not necessarily warrant criminal proceedings. The judge also addressed the argument of double jeopardy, stating that the proceedings before the Commission were not criminal in nature and, therefore, did not constitute double jeopardy. The judgment further highlighted that during the investigation, arrest is not mandatory and should only be made if deemed necessary for completing the investigation.

Summary: The judgment pertains to a suit for declaration filed by respondents against the petitioners and others. The suit claimed that the inheritance mutations of certain lands were obtained fraudulently, excluding the rightful heirs. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court modified the decree, stating that plaintiffs and defendants No.13 and 14 were entitled to inheritance and the entries in the revenue record.The petitioners challenge the judgments, arguing that the parties were governed by customary law, not Sharia. They assert that crucial facts, including a Revenue Officer's decision in 1933, were overlooked. The petitioners claim that the suit is time-barred and dispute the application of Section 2(A) of the Muslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act. They also contend that the findings on various issues are not sustainable under the law.The court reviews the evidence and concludes that the family was governed by Islamic law. It emphasizes that the daughters and widow were entitled to inherit the property and dismisses arguments related to limitation. The court also rejects the relevance of cited case law to the present circumstances.Furthermore, the court modifies the appellate court's findings, stating that all daughters and the widow or their legal heirs are entitled to inherit the property. The court dismissed the application for impleadment during the revision, citing the doctrine of lis pendens.

Summary: The petitioner argues that the work of the government should be carried out through its established departments, citing the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011. He contends that the P&D Board is neither a department nor an authorized body, and therefore, no government funds should be allocated to it. The petitioner seeks declarations that the government has neglected its duty by allowing the P&D Board to encroach on the domain of the Planning and Development Department, and requests the disbandment of the Board with recovery of all expenses incurred.Conversely, the respondents, representing the government, assert that the P&D Board was created to execute specific functions outlined in the Second Schedule of the Rules of Business, 2011. They argue that the Board's creation in 1967 was protected under Article 268 of the Constitution. The respondents claim that the posts of Chairman and Member are duly reflected in the annual budget approved by the Provincial Cabinet and Assembly.After considering the arguments, the Lahore High Court, through Judge Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, examines the legal basis for the existence of the P&D Board. The judgment emphasizes the constitutional and legal framework governing the formation of such boards and the adherence to the Rules of Business, 2011. The court ultimately declares that the formation of the P&D Board is not in conformity with the Constitution and the Rules of Business. It orders the dissolution of the Board within three months unless legislative measures are introduced to align it with constitutional requirements

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908): ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2— Interim Injunction—Essential Requirements—Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Loss, and Balance of Inconvenience—Non-Existence of Justiciable Claim—Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court— Petitioner sought permanent and mandatory injunction against alleged illegal construction by private respondents on the ground that it blocked the free passage adjacent to his residence—Interim relief under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. was denied by the Civil Judge and affirmed by the Additional District Judge—Both courts relied on report of local commission and written statement of respondent No.7/Cantonment Board, which confirmed that construction was within the old structure and carried out with proper permission—Held, petitioner failed to establish prima facie case, irreparable loss, or balance of inconvenience in his favour—Where factual issues require adjudication through evidence and involve disputed rights, courts are justified in declining injunctive relief—Discretion exercised by lower courts found proper, lawful, and not arbitrary—Petitioner failed to demonstrate grounds warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Revision dismissed. (b) Administration of Justice: ----Discretion of Civil Courts in Injunctive Matters—Scope of Interference in Revisional Jurisdiction— Where courts of first and appellate instance have exercised discretion after evaluating evidence, pleadings, and commission reports, High Court in revisional jurisdiction will not ordinarily interfere unless the order is perverse, arbitrary, or without jurisdiction—Mere disagreement with conclusions is insufficient ground for revision—Findings based on local commission and official permissions from relevant authorities carry strong evidentiary value. -----Cited Cases: • Irshad Husain v. Province of Punjab PLD 2003 SC 344 • Pervaiz Hussain v. Arabian Sea Enterprises Ltd. 2007 SCMR 1005 • Marghub Siddiqi v. Hamid Ahmad Khan 1974 SCMR 519 • Mst. Hajran Begum v. Kh. Muhammad Yousaf 2005 MLD 592 (Lahore) • Province of Punjab v. Alamgir PLD 2005 Lahore 401 • Sarwar Ali v. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies 2016 CLC 1090 -----Disposition: Revision dismissed in limine.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Chance witness, in legal parlance, is one who claims that he was present on the crime spot at the fateful time, testimony of the chance witness ordinarily, is not accepted unless justiciable reasons are shown to establish his presence on the scene of crime.