Summary: The High Court of Sindh at Karachi addressed two related suits, Suit No. 333 of 2012 (FGBC Limited & Another vs. Director General Mines and Minerals Development & Others) and Suit No. 675 of 2014 (Fateh Textile Mills & Others vs. Government of Sindh & Others), both concerning leasehold rights to 8,626 acres of land in the Lakhra Coal Field, District Jamshoro, situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of Karachi districts.During a joint hearing on June 12, 2018, the Court considered the maintainability of the suits in Karachi, given the land's location. The plaintiffs argued the suits were maintainable, citing the defendants' offices in Karachi and past legal actions taken in Karachi as establishing jurisdiction. They also differentiated the leasehold rights in question from more permanent rights, suggesting this affected jurisdiction.However, the Court, referencing its own precedents and legal provisions, concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the land in dispute was outside Karachi. The Court clarified that its original civil jurisdiction, as defined by legal statutes, is confined to Karachi districts and does not extend to the entire province of Sindh. Consequently, the Court found that the suits could not be maintained in Karachi and ordered the plaints to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation in a court with appropriate jurisdiction, as mandated by Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. ---- The first suit, known as Suit 1, seeks to assert rights in the land and prevent dispossession, while the second suit, Suit 2, aims to obtain a declaration of title or rights over the same land. Both suits are related to the leasehold rights held by a common corporate entity. The court conducted a joint hearing for both suits to determine their maintainability. The plaintiffs argued that the suits were maintainable because certain legal provisions exempted the High Court in Karachi from territorial jurisdiction restrictions. They also claimed that the defendants had accepted the court's jurisdiction by filing written statements and that the causes of action were alleged to have occurred in Karachi. In response, the defendant's counsel argued that the suits were not maintainable due to the land being located outside Karachi's jurisdiction. They cited relevant legal provisions and previous judgments to support their position. After reviewing the arguments and relevant legal precedents, the court concluded that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the suits. It relied on the principles outlined in various judgments, including the fact that the suits concerned immovable property located outside the court's jurisdiction. As a result, the court ordered the plaints in both Suit 1 and Suit 2 to be returned to the plaintiffs, with copies retained for the court's records, as per the mandatory provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Summary: The court concludes that it lacks the territorial jurisdiction to hear these suits since the land in question is situated outside the jurisdiction of the High Court in Karachi. Therefore, the court exercises its power under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC and orders the plaints in both suits to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation in the appropriate court with jurisdiction over the location of the land.

Summary: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss; 9(c) & 36óPossessing and trafficking narcoticsóAppreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution witness deposed that the colour of recovered charas was greenish-brown, whereas the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, had revealed the colour of charas as blackish-brownóComplainant, neither in complaint, nor in his *statement before court, mentioned the time as to when accused was nabbed---Prosecution had not been able to discharge its onus of proving the safe custody of recovered substance and such omission gave rise to doubtóOriginal report issued by Forensic Science Laboratory

Summary: Vires of Rule 8(2)(a)(iii) of the Pension Rules for Civil Servant's Family Pension (Federal Government), was in question, which deprived the second unmarried daughter from pensionary benefits of her father/mother. During proceedings the Rule was amended, allowing all surviving unmarried daughters to receive the pensionary benefits equally.

Summary: The appellant claimed to have purchased a piece of land from the respondent through an agreement to sell, dated 07.09.2013, for a total consideration of Rs.6,21,936/27, with Rs.1,65,000/- paid as an earnest/advance money. The agreement was signed by both parties and witnessed by Nazam Ali, the son-in-law of the plaintiff.The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the appellant's failure to produce a second marginal witness for the agreement to sell and the absence of attestation by the Embassy or any other foreign office authority. The first appellate court agreed with the trial court regarding the lack of a second witness but disagreed on the need for embassy attestation. The respondent did not participate in the trial but contested the appeal.The judgment delves into the details of the agreement to sell and its deficiencies, emphasizing that according to Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, such agreements must be attested by two witnesses. The agreement in question only had Nazam Ali's signature as a witness. Furthermore, the judgment highlights that the agreement lacked essential terms such as the time for performance, payment details, mode of payment, and the description of the land.The judgment concludes that the agreement to sell is not legally valid due to these deficiencies and cannot be enforced. Consequently, the appellant's suit based on this agreement is rejected. The judgment references relevant case law to support this decision and dismisses the appellant's second appeal, with no order for costs.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Although an authority that has passed an order has the authority to withdraw, vary or rescind the same under Section 20 of Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956 but the said power cannot be exercised when a vested right is created in the favour of the other party. Even otherwise, the order of the competent authority for awarding marks out of 15 to LL.B Degree holders on the basis of percentage obtained in the said examination by them, was not an illegal order rather it could only be treated an order based on interpretation of the policy. Once having interpreted the Policy in favour of petitioners and issuing them appointment letters, the respondents/authority would be estopped and could not be allowed to later-on interpret the said Policy differently especially in a manner that cannot co-exist with the earlier interpretation just to deprive the petitioners of vested rights already accrued in their favour.

Summary: Once petitioner was found to have complied with the requirement of height in one measurement process then second measurement declaring him not complying with the height requirement was not justified. Second measurement was declared to be without lawful authority.

Summary: Background:In the Supreme Court of Pakistan, a series of Human Rights Cases and Civil Miscellaneous Applications were brought forth regarding the removal of unauthorized encroachments and the operation of the Zulfiqarabad Oil Terminal (ZOT). The Chairman of the Oil Tankers Association expressed concerns about the readiness of the terminal for proper operation. A Committee was formed to assess the situation, comprising the Mayor of Karachi, legal representatives, and stakeholders. Their visit to the ZOT resulted in a report outlining the existing facilities and pending works needed for the terminal's functionality.----Issues:Whether the Zulfiqarabad Oil Terminal is sufficiently equipped for the operation and parking of oil tankers.Whether there are pending works necessary for the terminal's functionality.Whether there is cooperation from stakeholders, particularly the Oil Tankers Association, for the smooth operation of the terminal.Whether the concerned authorities are fulfilling their responsibilities regarding the provision of necessary facilities and land allocation for parking tankers.-----Holding/Reasoning:The Committee's report outlined the existing facilities at the Zulfiqarabad Oil Terminal, including parking spaces, office facilities, bathrooms, and other amenities. However, it identified pending minor works required for complete functionality.It was observed that the Oil Tankers Association expressed readiness to shift operations to the new terminal. However, non-cooperation from certain parties necessitated legal enforcement for compliance.The Court directed the Oil Tankers Association to shift operations to the new terminal within four days and instructed concerned authorities to expedite pending works.Additionally, the Court ordered the Board of Revenue to allocate 50 acres of land to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) for parking tankers within three days.The Court mandated the publication of its order on its website for public awareness and compliance.The case was scheduled for re-listing to monitor compliance and further proceedings.

Summary: Background:In the Supreme Court of Pakistan, multiple civil appeals (Nos. 85-K to 99-K of 2015 and Nos. 1783 & 1784 of 2016) were presented concerning termination of employment by M/s J & S Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt) Ltd., both part of the Jang Group, under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973. The termination notices cited redundancy due to technological advancements. The High Court of Sindh ruled in favor of the employees, emphasizing a settlement agreement from 1990. The appellants contested this decision.----Issues:Whether the settlement agreement from 1990 applied to both appellants.Whether the termination notices were valid under Section 4 of the 1973 Act.Whether the delay in filing the Independent appeals should be condoned.----Holding/Reasoning:The Court ruled that the 1990 Agreement only applied to Independent and not to J&S, as it was a localized agreement addressing immediate issues specific to Jang Karachi. The clause regarding adjustment of employees elsewhere had a limited time frame and did not apply after June 30, 1990. Therefore, the termination notices were not based on any settlement in force and were valid under Section 4 of the 1973 Act, considering redundancy as "good cause" for termination. The Court emphasized the contextual interpretation of agreements and noted the applicability of labor laws to newspaper establishments. As for the delay in filing the Independent appeals, it was condoned.----Citations/Precedents:Enmay Zeb Publication (Pvt.) Limited v Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal through Chairman and others, 2001 SCMR 565.----Quote:The 1990 Agreement, which provides that employee became redundant can be employed somewhere else and not to make redundant, must be read as a whole and interpreted in the light of well-established rules. When so considered, it appears that the agreement was intended to deal with certain immediate issues of concern peculiar to Jang Karachi. It was not intended to be an omnibus agreement, applicable generally to the workmen of the Jang Group. The termination of services of a newspaper employee, who is a workman, for the reason that his services have become redundant because of modernization or technological changes and developments is a ?good cause? within the meaning of s. 4. It would certainly appear to be a valid ground for terminating the services of a workman in terms of the 1968 Ordinance and the 1969 Ordinance.