Summary: (a) Civil service-------Appointment of Teacher and Mo'alam-ul-Quran---Candidate having qualification ofShahadat-ul-Aalia---Appointment order/letter in favour of candidate was not issued on theground that degrees possessed by him did not qualify the requirements of posts applied for---Validity---No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the department while issuingappointment orders in favour of qualified persons---Competent authority found the degrees ofcandidate invalid for the subject posts---No discrimination had taken place---High Court, whileexercising constitutional jurisdiction, could not reverse the decision with regard to policy mattersapplicable to the candidates/participants without any discrimination---No Fundamental Right ofpetitioner guaranteed under the Constitution having been violated or denied, High Court couldnot enter into factual controversy which could only be resolved after thorough probe andrecording evidence---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Scope---High Court could not enter into factualcontroversy which could only be resolved after thorough probe and recording evidence.

Summary: Background: The appellant (husband) and respondent No.1 (wife) were married on April 18, 2004, and had three sons (respondents No. 2, 3, and 4). The respondents filed a suit for maintenance charges in the Family Court Charhoi, claiming that the appellant had not paid maintenance since 2009 and had expelled them from the house. The Family Court decreed the suit, ordering the appellant to pay maintenance charges. The appellant challenged the judgment in the Shariat Court, which upheld the Family Court's decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Can the Family Court order maintenance charges for a period when the wife was allegedly living in the husband’s house? -----2- Does the withdrawal of the previous suit for maintenance charges, resulting from a compromise, bar the respondents from filing a fresh suit? -----3- Were the respondents entitled to claim maintenance charges from 2009? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that the Family Court and Shariat Court's findings were correct. The appellant had indeed ousted the respondents from his home in 2009 and had not paid maintenance since then. The courts found that the appellant's compromise, made to avoid a court ruling on maintenance, did not absolve him of responsibility. The withdrawal of the previous suit did not operate as res judicata because the suit was withdrawn due to a compromise, and the respondents did not abandon their claim for maintenance. The principles of res judicata under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) do not apply to Family Court cases. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the respondents were entitled to maintenance charges from 2009 onward, as ordered by the lower courts. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Amreen vs. Muhammad Kabir [2014 SCR 504] Mst. Noshia Parveen vs. Tariq Pervaiz [Civil Appeal No. 55/1998, decided on 15.6.1998] Muhammad Shafique and 4 others vs. Muhammad Rafique and another [2012 YLR 2801] Talib Hussain vs. Addl. District Judge Arifwala and 2 others [PLJ 2001 Lahore 292]

Summary: Background: Respondent No.1 filed a writ of prohibition, challenging the potential cancellation of her appointment as Primary Teacheress (B-7), issued on April 20, 2005, after qualifying through a test and interview. She also contested the appointment of the appellant made on December 1, 2007, alleging it was unlawful. After proceedings, the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent on June 26, 2015, declaring the appellant’s appointment order fraudulent and ordering the recovery of emoluments paid to the appellant, along with the registration of an FIR against her. This appeal challenges the High Court's judgment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court has the authority to set aside a prior judgment without being formally challenged. -----2- Whether the appointment order dated December 1, 2007, was valid or fraudulent. -----3- Whether the appellant should be required to return the emoluments received. -----4- Whether the order for registering an FIR against the appellant is lawful. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court’s ruling was affirmed in part and modified in part. The court found that the appellant's appointment order was indeed fraudulent. Consequently, the emoluments received based on the fabricated order must be recovered. However, the court modified the High Court's directive regarding the FIR. It concluded that an inquiry must first establish who fabricated the appointment order, and only after such determination should an FIR be registered against the responsible party. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Younas Tahir v. Shaukat Aziz, Advocate, Muzaffarabad & others [2012 SCR 213] Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Government & others [2014 SCR 1258] Dr. Ashiq Hussain Bhatti v. Azad Govt. & 5 others [2016 SCR 365] The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan & others [PLD 1975 SC 331] Lawrancepur Woolen & Textile Mills Ltd. v. Muhammad Farooq & 2 others [1995 SCMR 782] Shiv Sagar Singh v. Sitaram Kumhar and Ors. [AIR 1952 Patna 48] Sadho Saran Rai v. Anant Rai [AIR 1923 Patna 483] Grindlay’s Bank Ltd. v. Murree Brewery Company Ltd. [PLD 1954 Lahore 745] Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb [AIR 1999 SC 2089]

Summary: Background:Mehboob Khan, the plaintiff-respondent, filed two suits for pre-emption in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kotli, on 29th November, 1997, against two separate sale-deeds executed on 2nd August, 1997, and 5th August, 1997, respectively. The suits were based on the grounds of being a co-sharer in the land, having a share in the shamilat deh (common land), and having prior right of purchase compared to the defendants. The trial court dismissed both suits, but the District Judge, Kotli decreed both in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which upheld the District Judge's decision. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.----Issues:Whether one petition for leave to appeal from the consolidated judgment and two decrees of the High Court recorded in separate appeals is competent or not.Whether the plaintiff's right of pre-emption is valid based on being a co-sharer in the shamilat deh land.Whether the plaintiff's pre-emption suits are maintainable due to partial pre-emption.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court held that:A single petition for leave to appeal from consolidated judgments and decrees is competent when similar questions of fact and law are involved in multiple suits.The plaintiff's right of pre-emption based solely on being a co-sharer in the shamilat deh land is not valid, and the suits are hit by partial pre-emption.Pre-emption cannot be maintained solely on the grounds of contiguity of land without fulfilling all necessary legal requirements.As a result, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the decrees of the lower courts, and dismissed the plaintiff's suits. No costs were awarded.----Citations/Precedents:Saraswathi Ammal and another vs. Rajagopal Ammal (AIR 1952 Madaras 81)Ghulam Nabi vs. Mst. Hussain Bibi and 3 others (PLD 1981 SC (AJ&K) 42)Abdul Ghani Farooqi vs. Chairman, AJ&K Council and 2 others (2000 SCR 273)Muhammad Rafique vs. Qurban Hussain and another (2016 SCR 796)Siraj Din and 11 others vs. Rajada (1992 SCMR 979)Khair Muhammad vs. Muhammad Hussain and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 577)Sain vs. Muhammad Din and others (1995 SCR 208)

Summary: Background:Usman Ali, the appellant, filed a declaratory suit regarding land ownership in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur. The suit alleged that land previously owned by the appellant's grandfather had come into their share through family partition. The defendants were accused of having no rightful claim to the land, and the appellant sought to challenge the validity of a gift-deed executed in favor of the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, prompting an appeal to the District Judge, Mirpur.----Issues:Whether an amendment to the pleadings, specifically regarding the timing of a party's death, was necessary for a just decision.Whether the amendment sought by the appellant introduced a new case or prolonged litigation.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir reviewed the appellant's request for amendment in light of legal principles. It determined that the proposed amendment was crucial for a just decision as it pertained to the timing of a party's death, which directly impacted the litigation's outcome. The Court emphasized that amendments should not introduce new cases or extend litigation unnecessarily. Considering the precedent set by previous cases and the facts presented, the Court allowed the appellant's amendment, finding it necessary and in line with legal standards.----Citations/Precedents:Abdul Rashid & another vs. Munir Akthar (2016 SCR 128)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Question of Gift Mutation regarding inherited property on account of natural love and affection. Question about challenging the mutation after more than 14-years. Question: ingredients of valid gift and its burden to prove. Query: Both mutations were based on fraud, misrepresentation and collusion. Question regarding illiterate Parda Nasheen Lady. Query regarding cause of action; maintainability of suit. Query relates to identification alleged donee at the time of transfer of property. Law protects the right of women to inherit ancestral property and more particularly of Parda Nasheen illiterate women.

Summary: Summary pending.