Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 14 & 35 – Right to Dignity and Protection of the Family Litigation weaponizing infertility and attacking womanhood—Scope—Held, right to dignity under Art.14 and the obligation to protect the institution of marriage under Art.35 prohibit the use of litigation to degrade and traumatize women—Allegation by petitioner-husband that respondent-wife was not legally “female” and unfit for conjugal life, despite conclusive medical findings and evidence of cohabitation, was found to be frivolous, demeaning, and abusive—Court recorded strong disapproval of such conduct, terming it an affront to personal dignity and an abuse of judicial process. (b) Muslim Family Laws – Dower and Maintenance – Validity despite Alleged Infertility Entitlement to dower and maintenance—Effect of infertility or suspicion thereof—Held, infertility, even if established, is no bar to a woman’s entitlement to dower or maintenance—Marital bond is a sacred covenant under Islamic law; personal medical conditions cannot be weaponized to undermine marital obligations—Court affirmed that the respondent-wife, having lived with the petitioner and proven consummation of marriage, was entitled to dower, dowry articles, and maintenance, as rightly held by courts below. (c) Family Courts Act, 1964 – Concurrent Findings – Interference by Supreme Court Concurrent findings of fact by Family Court, District Court, and High Court—Scope of interference—Held, Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent factual findings unless a legal error is apparent on the face of record—In present case, judgments of courts below were well-reasoned, based on record, and legally sound—Leave to appeal refused accordingly. (d) Civil Procedure – Abuse of Process – Frivolous and Malicious Defence Malicious litigation—Repeated allegations of non-femininity and infertility despite contrary medical findings—Held, petitioner’s persistent attempts to degrade the respondent through invasive scrutiny amounted to misuse of judicial process—Such conduct warrants exemplary sanction to deter recurrence and uphold judicial dignity. (e) Costs – Exemplary Costs – Deterrence against Misuse of Judicial Process Award of exemplary costs—Scope and justification—Held, Court has inherent power to impose exemplary costs to penalize frivolous and abusive litigation—Petitioner’s conduct caused prolonged trauma and humiliation to the respondent over a decade—Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 500,000/- to be paid to the respondent—Non-payment to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Disposition: Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 500,000/- imposed on the petitioner for abuse of judicial process and personal degradation of the respondent; recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of non-payment.

Summary: (a) Oil and Gas Development Corporation Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1985--- ----Regln. 22(1)(c) & (d)---Family pension---Unmarried and widowed daughters---Entitlement---Petitioner was the divorced daughter of a retired employee of respondent / company---Grievance of petitioner was that the respondent / company had denied her family pension after the death of her father---Validity---Family pension system is designed to provide continued financial support to legal dependents of a deceased employee---Primary objective of family pension is rooted in the principles of social welfare and economic protection, ensuring that those who were financially dependent on deceased during his lifetime are not left in hardship or destitution after his demise---Interpreting pension laws, Courts must be guided by such broader social and economic purpose, eschewing a narrow or overly technical approach especially in situations, where an apparent limited scope of a particular provision of law may result in a situation that may defeat the very purpose of that law---Pension is not a gratuitous benefit or an act of charity; it is a rightful and earned entitlement, representing deferred remuneration for services rendered by the employee, which becomes payable upon retirement or death---Language of Regln. 22 of Oil and Gas Development Corporation Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1985 must be construed in a manner that ensures equitable extension of benefits to all children, irrespective of marital status---Divorced daughter, having reverted to an unmarried status upon dissolution of her marriage, falls within the ambit of “unmarried daughter” and cannot be excluded solely on the basis of her prior marital status---Letter issued by respondent / company was fraught with legal and Constitutional infirmities by purporting to interpret and restrict the scope of Regln. 22 of Oil and Gas Development Corporation Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1985---Respondent / company through letter in question engaged in an unauthorized executive act that had effectively amended Oil and Gas Development Corporation Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1985 by administrative authorization, exceeding its lawful authority---Letter in question introduced a discriminatory classification by excluding divorced daughters from eligibility, despite absence of any such express restriction in Regln. 22 of Oil and Gas Development Corporation Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1985---High Court declared the Letter issued by respondent / company as without lawful authority and of no legal effect---High Court directed respondent / company to transfer family pension of deceased in favour of petitioner---High Court further directed respondent / company to restore and disburse commuted portion of deceased’s pension, along with all increases accrued since year 2016, to the petitioner, with effect from the due date---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Saif-ur-Rehman v. Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh and 2 others 2018 SCMR 1885; Pakistan Engineering Co. Limited, Lahore through Managing Director v. Fazal Beg and 2 others 1992 SCMR 2166; Dr. Tariq Iqbal and 8 others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Administration Peshawar and others 2019 SCMR 859; Lahore Development Authority through D.G., Lahore and another v. Abdul Shafique and others PLD 2000 SC 207; Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh and others 1955 AIR (SC) 830; JS Bank Limited, Karachi and others v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Food, Lahore and others 2021 SCMR 1617; Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-II, Regional Tax Office, Multan v. Mrs. Ambreen Fawad Co. Pak Arab Fertilizers Limited, Multan PLD 2014 Lah. 72; Abdul Salam v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others 2019 PTD 1862; Rab Nawaz Dhadwanai Advocate and others v. Rana Muhammad Akram Advocate and others PLD 2014 Lah. 591; Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited through Attorney v. Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority through Chairperson and 2 others PLD 2021 Isl. 378 and Hudabiya Engineering (Pvt.) Limited v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan and 6 others PLD 1998 Lah. 90 ref. Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh and others 2024 SCMR 1689 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 25---Equality---Principle---Differential treatment is in violation of the Constitutional guarantee of equality and results in discriminatory practices that cannot be sustained in law---Any classification must be based on an intelligible differentia and must bear a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the law. Jurist Foundation v. Federal Government through the Secretary Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2020 SC 1; Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh and others 2024 SCMR 1689; Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif 2023 SCMR 129; Hadayat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 1691; Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 201 and Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 265 rel. Jameel Hussain Qureshi, Faiza Sultan and Nawazish Ali Gondal for Petitioner. Muhammad Saqib Bhatti for Respondent No.1. Assisted by: Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 12th June, 2025.

Summary: ----Ss.23 & 24---Privatization (Modes and Procedure) Rules, 2001, R.3---Privatization Commission (Hiring of Financial Advisors) Regulations, 2018, Regln. 3---Privatization Commission (Confidentiality and Secrecy of Documents) Regulations, 2003, Regln. 3---Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Conversion) Act (XV of 2016), S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.173 and 199---Privatization procedure of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited, challenge to---Notice of intent to commence privatization and valuation of assets---Requirements---The petitioner filed 'pro bono publico' writ petition challenging the privatization process of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited (PIACL), alleging non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Ss. 23 & 24 of the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000, inasmuch as no lawful advertisement of intent was issued nor proper valuation of assets was undertaken, thereby rendering the entire exercise arbitrary, non-transparent, and violative of the fundamental right to information under Article 19-A of the Constitution---Nub of the matter was the determination as to "whether the process of privatization undertaken by the Privatization Commission was in conformity with Ss. 23 & 24 of the Ordinance 2000 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder or whether the same was tainted with arbitrariness, procedural impropriety or lack of lawful authority"---Held: There was no doubt that failure to comply with the procedural requirements of S. 23 of the Ordinance 2000 would have rendered the privatization process legally defective and open to judicial review---Bare reading of Ss. 23 of the Ordinance 2000read with S. 5(o) of the Ordinance 2000 made it abundantly clear that it was the duty of the Privatization Commission to invite open applications for the purpose of privatization, after consultation with the Federal Government, for making the process transparent and competitive by preventing favoritism and ensuring fair competition---It was evident from the record that the required newspaper advertisements were published in national newspapers "Daily Express", "Daily Jang" (Urdu Newspapers) and "Dawn" and "Business Recorder" (English Newspapers) on 02.04.2025---Notice of invitation was also got published in international dailies "Financial Times" (03.04.2024), "China Daily" (02.04.2024) and "The Wall Street Journal" (02.04.2024) by the Commission---The said advertisement was also got published on 15.04.2025 with at least thirteen days gap on "Daily Express", "Daily Jang" (Urdu Newspapers) and "Dawn" and "Business Recorder" (English Newspapers)---In this view of the matter, the record demonstrated that advertisement of privatization of the "PIACL" was issued in consultation with the concerned enterprise in accordance with requirement of the S. 23 of the Ordinance 2000---Moreover, the issuance of a formal valuation report was a condition precedent for the progression of the privatization process which ensured that the Commission, bidders, and the public were fully aware of the independently assessed value of the asset being privatized---It was evident from the notice of advertisements that the Privatization Commission had appointed EY Consulting LLC, as the Financial Advisor along with other consortium members to conduct the transaction---If S. 24 of the Ordinance 2000 was read with S. 23 of the Ordinance 2000 along with Ss. 5(o) & 5(p) of the Ordinance 2000, it transpired that Privatization Commission was empowered to evaluate the bids against the criteria fixed by it---Record was indicative of the fact that the Privatization Commission had appointed EY Consulting LLC, as the Financial Advisor to conduct the transaction in the prescribed manner after seeking proper approval from the Cabinet and hence this requirement was also fully met with by the respondents---Privatization Commission had duly conducted the process of privatization as per Ss. 23 & 24 of the Ordinance 2000---Regarding application of the petitioner seeking summoning and production of record pertaining to assets, valuation reports and financial particulars of PIACL regarding process of privatization, such request could not be entertained given the fact that such documents were confidential under Regln. 3 of the Privatization Commission (Confidentiality and Secrecy of Documents) Regulations, 2003---The process of privatization was strictly followed as per prescribed criteria, therefore, present petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----Ss. 3, 11 & 12---Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000), Ss.23 & 24---Privatization of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited (the PIACL)---Competition Commission of Pakistan---Role, object and scope---In the privatization of the "PIACL"the role of Competition Commission of Pakistan (the CCP)is both pivotal and exemplary, reflecting its statutory mandate as an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory authority established under S. 3 of the Competition Act of 2010---The CCP's involvement in the acquisition of 100% shareholding of the PIACL by PIA Holding Company Limited (Holdco) underscores its critical function in scrutinizing mergers and acquisitions to prevent any appreciable adverse effect on competition within relevant markets. Dilsons (Private) Limited and others v. Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and another 2021 CLD 1317 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---Public interest litigation---Locus standi---Scope---Public Interest Litigation is an extraordinary jurisdiction enabling the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to address questions of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights of the public at large, particularly where disadvantaged or unorganized segments of society are unable to approach the Court themselves---Such jurisdiction has been exercised in matters of environment, human rights, detention, labour, prisoners, health, education, and transparency in governance---However, it is settled by now that Public Interest Litigation cannot be misused for private motives or publicity and the petitioner must establish bona fide intent supported by credible material to justify judicial intervention---Public Interest Litigation, though entertained with a liberal approach, must be founded upon some credible material demonstrating violation of law or infringement of fundamental rights---Mere bald assertions, unaccompanied by documents or evidence, cannot constitute a valid cause for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution. Kakakhail Traders v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 2025 Lah. 630 ref. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Non-functionality/non-existence of statutory forum to entertain statutory remedy provided by law---Scope and effect---Ordinarily when a statute provides for an alternate forum, a party must first exhaust such remedy before invoking constitutional jurisdiction---However, where the statutory forum is non-existent or has not been constituted, the litigant cannot be left remediless---The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is therefore available in such exceptional circumstances to ensure that justice is not defeated merely on account of the failure of the executive to establish the requisite forum. Kakakhail Traders v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 2025 Lah. 630 ref. (e) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Preamble of a statute---Purpose, scope and significance---Preamble to a statute is though not an operational part of the enactment but it is a gateway, which opens the purpose and intent of the legislature, which necessitated the legislation on the subject and also sheds clear light on the goals which the legislator aimed to secure through the introduction of such law---The preamble of a statute, therefore holds a pivotal role for the purposes of interpretation in order to dissect the true purpose and intent of the law. Director General, FIA and others v. Kamran Iqbal and others 2016 SCMR 447 rel. Messrs Tradhol International SA Sociedad Unipersonal v. Ms Shakarganj Limited 2023 CLD 819; Abwa Knowledge (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2021 Lah. 436; Chenab Flour and General Mills and others v. F.O.P through Secretary Revenue Division and others PLD 2021 Lah. 343; Messrs Jet Green (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2021 Lah. 770; M.C.B. v. Adeel Shahbaz and others 2023 CLD 655; Pakistan Tehreek e Insaaf through Asad Umar v. Governor Punjab through Principal Secretary PLD 2023 Lah. 179 = PLJ 2023 Lah. 467; Messrs Bahria Town (Pvt.) v. District Consumer Court and others PLJ 2022 Lah. 199; PLD 2022 Lah. 488; F.O.P v. Nasir Munir Ahmed and others 2022 CLC 2072; Addl. Registrar Company v. Al-Qaim Textile Mills Ltd. 2021 CLD 931; Ch Fayyaz Hussain Wains v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 2022 Lah. 1 and Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2021 PTD 2126 ref. (f) Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000)--- ----S. 5---Privatization Commission---Functions, objectives and purpose---Section 5 of the Privatization Commission Ordinance 2000 makes it abundantly clear that the Privatization Commission has been entrusted with a broad spectrum of functions---Its role is two-fold: firstly, to act as an advisory body to the Federal Cabinet by recommending policy guidelines, preparing comprehensive programmes, and suggesting necessary legislative or regulatory measures; and secondly, to serve as an implementing agency to plan, manage and control the privatization process once it has been duly approved by the Cabinet. (g) Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000)--- ----S.25---Privatization by the Privatization Commission---Scope, authority, and procedural compliance---The privatization policy aims to create a mechanism for generation of funds for the retirement of government debt while ensuring improvements in service and operational capacity of utilities in a transparent manner for effective management of domestic industry, greater domestic investment and economic growth---The objectives of privatization are to improve the operational efficiency and overall performance of entities, to reduce the fiscal burden of the Government, to promote and strengthen the capital market, the creation of a conducive economic environment and improve overall efficiency---The process of privatization is enshrined in S. 25 of the Ordinance 2000and the Privatization (Modes and Procedure) Rules, 2001---The Board of the Privatization Commission and the Cabinet Committee on Privatization determine the process after deciding one of the modes viz (i) sale of assets and business; (ii) sale of shares through public auction or tender; (iii) public offering of shares through a stock exchange; (iv) management or employee buyouts by management or employees of a SOE; (v) lease, management or concession contracts; (vi) any other method as may be prescribed---The objective of privatization is not merely profit-making, but to enhance productivity, attract investment, and reduce inefficiency in loss-making enterprises---It has also been acknowledged globally that privatization can bring about managerial autonomy and operational flexibility, enabling enterprises to compete in a globalized economy---These decisions affirm that privatization, if conducted within the framework of law and with appropriate safeguards, aligns with the constitutional mandate of economic development and public welfare---Therefore, rather than being viewed with skepticism, privatization deserves protection and support when it is pursued with accountability, fairness, and the broader goal of national progress. Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455 rel. (h) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000), S.25-- -Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to 'privatization policy' and 'economic and commercial matters'---Judicial overreach---Scope---Protection of foreign investment in Pakistan---Constitutional courts must exercise judicial restraint in economic and commercial matters, particularly in relation to the privatization policy, to prevent disruption of national economic objectives and divestment from loss- making State-Owned Enterprises---High Court cannot ignore the instances of judicial overreach wherein extensive interference by courts in contractual and investment matters has, over time, contributed to uncertainty in the regulatory landscape, adversely affecting Pakistan's ability to attract and retain foreign investment---Investor confidence, both domestic and international, hinges upon the predictability and stability of legal framework---The Constitutional courts of Pakistan must exercise judicial restraint in matters that impact foreign investment in Pakistan---The role of Courts in matters of economic policy is necessarily limited---The judicial review of economic decisions is confined to assessing whether the policy is arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, or violative of constitutional mandates---The wisdom of privatization and the decision to open certain sectors to foreign investment, lies primarily within the competence of the elected branches of Government, provided the process complies with the law and respects Constitutional boundaries. The Commissioner Inland Revenue and others v. Mekotex (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 2024 SC 1168 and Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455 rel. M.C.R. (Pvt.) Ltd. Franchisee of Pizza Hut v. Multan Development Authority and others 2021 CLD 639; China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. and others v. Z. Z. Enterprises and others 2024 CLD 917 and Messrs 5 H Insaat Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Secretary Local Government and others 2025 CLD 813 ref. (i) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Judicial restraint in matters relating to Government's economic and privatization policies---Scope, purpose, limits and concept---In the absence of any glaring illegality, or violation of fundamental rights, the Courts must exercise judicial restraint for passing any adverse order, which can potentially hinder or nullify any government initiative to encourage and promote the investment process because judicial restraint encourages the judges to exercise their powers with restraint and wisdom and to limit the exercise of their own powers to intervene in the matters relating to policy of the Government having financial perspective and outcome and exercise---Under Art. 199 of the Constitution, the Court is thought competent to exercise the power of judicial review to examine administrative actions from the touchstone of violation of law and breadth of the Constitution, yet the power of judicial review is regulated by the principle of judicial restraint, the purpose and extent of which has already been discussed supra---While using powers under Art. 199 of the Constitution relating to a policy of the Government with financial layout and implications, the Court exercises the power of judicial review with judicial restraint as a substantive approach to interfere in such matters within the contemplation of judicial review while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction. Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 2014 SC 1 rel. Muhammad Azam v. Province of Punjab and others 2022 CLC 532; Muhammad Umais v. Cantonment Board Rawalpindi and others PLD 2022 Lah. 148 and Syed Faisal Mehboob v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2022 CLC 1153 ref. Nazakat Hussain Abbasi and Asif Mehmood for Petitioner. Barrister Haseeb Shakoor Piracha, Additional Attorney General with Barrister Zain Mansoor, Assistant Attorney General and Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.. Barrister Sardar Kalim Ilyas, Advocate Supreme Court with Barrister Minaal Tariq for Respondent No.2. Barrister Pirzada M. Aurang Zaib with Wajih Hassan Pasha, Safdar Shaheen Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court, Maham Jamal and Muhammad Talib Shahzad for Respondent No.5. Haroon Abbasi, DGM Legal PIACL for Respondent No.6. Dr. Kabir Ahmed Sidhu, Chairman and Barrister Ambreen Abbasi, Senior Legal Advisor on behalf of Competition Commission of Pakistan. Dates of hearing: 19th, 25th and 27th June, 2025.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Qanun-e-Shahdat (10 of 1984), Arts. 79 & 117---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Inheritance dispute---Gift, essential ingredients of---Female legal heir claiming her Shari share in properties of her late father by filing suit for declaration---Brothers relying on a purported gift deed---Gift deed, execution of---Burden of proof---Scope---Burden is upon the brothers who rely upon the gift deed to the detriment of the sisters to prove the validity and authenticity of the gift deed---Petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership and her Shari share in certain properties inherited from her late father---She claimed that after her father’s death, his three sons and three daughters, including the petitioner, became legal heirs---Some of the legal heirs allegedly sold portions of the inherited property through disputed transactions to third parties---The Trial Court decreed the suit in her favour but in appeal the district court set aside that judgment and dismissed the suit, leading to the present revision petitions before the High Court---Held: It was clear from the perusal of alleged tamleek that it contained three thumb impressions but this document did not identify the individuals to whom such thumb impressions belonged to---Moreover, original document of tamleek was not produced before the court during evidence and nor was it mentioned in the pleadings that original tamleek was missing---Therefore, tamleek in favor of respondents/defendants was suspicious and unreliable---In the present case, the gift deed was not proved in view of the requirements of Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984 and the respondents/defendants had not discharged the burden---Respondents/brothers were not able to establish the essential ingredients of gift/tamleek i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession which was fatal to their case---Moreover, the question of limitation was raised by the respondents, therefore, the burden was upon them to prove that the suit was time-barred---However, there was no evidence on record from the side of the respondents/defendants to establish that the petitioner ever acquiesced to or waived her right in favour of her brothers or that she admitted the alleged gift in their favour to be valid---In this regard, they had failed to point out any specific occasion or event from which the limitation period for the accrual of her cause of action would commence while the petitioner/plaintiff had clearly asserted that her right has recently been denied by the respondents brothers---Impugned judgment and decree passed by appellate court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored---Both connected appeals were allowed, in circumstances. Rahmat Noor v. Zulqarnain 2023 SCMR 1645 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art.117---Burden of proof---One of possesses the document and claims entitlement on the basis of such document and benefits from it, will have to prove the said document and the burden would lie on that person. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art.100---Presumption as to thirty years old document---Relevance---Sanctity---Mere assertion of a party that a document being a thirty years old document cannot be accepted as gospel truth unless its contents are duly proved by the beneficiary in accordance with law, particularly when the same is denied by the opposite party. Noor Shah Ali Khan v. Khan Momin 2023 CLC 2002 ref. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.11---Res judicata---Lis not being decided on merit---Effect---Where a dispute between the parties has been decided without proper adjudication and evidence, the essential conditions required to establish the plea of res judicata do not exist. PLD 2005 SC 511 rel. (e) Gift--- ----Female heirs being deprived of or made to surrender/relinquish their inheritance shares by male members---Protection of woman’s inheritance rights by courts---Legal safeguards---Extra vigilance must be exercised in cases where purported gifts are made to deprive daughters and widows from what would have constituted their share in the inheritance of an estate---Purported gifts and other instruments used to deprive female family members including daughters and widows are contrary to law and public policy---Often male members of the family deprive entitled female members of their inheritance and, in doing so, law is being violated---When vulnerable women are at such times compelled to relinquish their inheritance in favor of their male members, such relinquishment offends public policy and is contrary to Shariah. Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her LRs and others 2021 SCMR 73; Mrs. Khalida Azhar v. Viqar Rustam Bakhshi and others 2018 SCMR 30 and Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 rel. (f) Islamic law--- ----Inheritance---Limitation in inheritance disputes---Generally in matter involving inheritance dispute, limitation is not taken into consideration to make such issue crucial for the dismissal of a suit especially of women folks and other fragile persons in the society when an element of fraud is involved and those in which a parda nasheen lady applies for her share in her lifetime. PLD 2022 SC 85 and 2023 SCMR 1901 rel. (g) Islamic law--- ----Gift---Burden of proof---Burden to prove a purported gift deed brought forward by the brothers in order to deprive sisters from the share in inheritance would lie on the person who produces it. 2022 SCMR 346 rel. (h) Islamic law--- ----Inheritance---Limitation in matters where woman is being deprived of requisite share in her late father’s estate---Scope---If a woman is unaware of being deprived of her right during the lifetime of her predecessor-in-interest, there would not be a requirement to have filed a suit earlier---In such circumstances, the cause of action would arise only when her rightful share in the property of her predecessor-in-interest was denied. Noor Din v. Pertaining Akhtar 2023 SCMR 1928 rel. (i) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---In a case where findings of the courts below are divergent the revisional court can reappraise evidence on record and for just decision of the matter may apply its own judicial mind. Mst. Azra Gulzar v. Muhammad Farooq 2022 SCMR 1625 rel. (j) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (VI of 1935) [since repealed]--- ----S.3(2)---Cases relating to succession of a Muslim---Muslim personal law---Applicability---Section 3(2) of the Act clearly indicated that notwithstanding any custom that was in force prior to the 1935 Act coming into force, whenever a question of succession upon the death of a Muslim arose in any Court, the Muslim Personal Law would be applicable with effect from the time of such death---Word ‘whenever’ contained in S.3(2) was significant; it meant that whenever a question relating to succession of a Muslim was raised in any Court, the Muslim Personal Law had to be applied with effect from the time when the death had taken place irrespective of the fact that at that time some custom was in force---In inheritance matters, even if the predecessor died before the enforcement of the Act ibid, it would still apply mutatis mutandis in accordance with Sharia principles. 2020 SCMR 346 and 2022 SCMR 1394 rel. Malak Ahmad Jan for Petitioner. Azeem Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th June, 2025. SABIT ULLAH KHAN, J.--- This single judgment in the instant petition is intended to decide this as well as connected C.R. No.341-M/2021 titled "Muhammad Idrees Khan and others v. Ubaid ur Rahman and others" as both these petitions are the outcome of Civil Suit No.44/1 of 2014 filed by the petitioner of the instant petition.

Summary: Section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908: The time between the date on which the copy is ready for delivery and the date on which the applicant chooses to take delivery thereof is not a limb of the ?time requisite' for obtaining certified copy. 354Writ Petition- Criminal Proceedings- Miscellaneous 7256-25 SYED NAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH VS DC BHAKKAR ETC Mr. Justice Ch. Sultan Mahmood 26- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4449

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2 & O.XLIII, R.1(r)---Appeal against order--- Trial Court "turning down" the request for grant of ad-interim relief ---"Turned down", terminology of---Scope ---Trial Court should either accept or dismiss the request for grant of ad-interim relief and terminology of "turned down" is not to be used ---Appellants filed a suit for declaration, recovery and permanent injunction along with an application under O.XXXIX, R.1 & 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction but the Trial Court "turned down" their requests for grant of ad-interim relief --- Validity --- Without discussing the reasons/grounds taken by the Trial Court for "turning down" the appellants' request for grant of temporary injunction the terminology "turned down" was not to be used in deciding application under O.XXXIX, R.1 & 2 of C.P.C. and the Trial Court should accept or dismiss it---Order XXXIX, R.1 & 2 of C.P.C. provided that court could grant a temporary injunction to restrain a party from committing an act that could cause injury to the other party or damage to the subject matter of the suit on specific terms, such as duration, keeping an account or providing security --- Impugned order of Trial Court suffered from a legal lacuna and it could not be sustained and the same was set-aside---Appellants' application for grant of temporary injunction was deemed to be pending before the Trial Court for decision afresh---Appeal against order was disposed of, in circumstances. Shariq Builders and Property Advisors v. Dr. Muhammad Faisal Murad and others 2024 MLD 32 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2, O.XLIII, R.1(r) --- Appeal against order of Trial Court refusing to grant ad-interim relief --- Order of Trial Court suffering from legal lacuna ---High Court dispensing with the requirement of issuingnotice to opposite side to promote the principle of speedy justice ---Limine control, doctrine of --- Applicability and scope --- Under the doctrine of limine control for early and expeditious disposal of a case, the court can decide the matter at limine stage on the basis of material/documents available on the record/file and without issuing notice to other side so that the party concerned may not face inconvenience or monetary loss in approaching the High Court. Asif Saleem v. Chairman BOG University of Lahore and others PLD 2019 Lah. 407 ref. Sardar Nisar Ahmed on behalf of the Appellants. Order Jawad Hassan, J .--- The Appellants have filed this appeal under Order XLIII of C.P.C. against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025, passed by Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby their application for grant of temporary injunction has been turned down. 2. At the outset, learned counsel submits that against the impugned order the Appellants have also filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi but subsequently, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 17.06.2025 due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. He further submits that the Appellants have a strong case for grant of interim injunction but the Civil Judge has turned down their request through the impugned order by not considering material aspects of the matter in true perspective. He prays for setting aside of the impugned order, being illegal and against the norms of justice. 3. Arguments heard and record perused. 4. Since short point is involved, notice to other side is dispensed with to avoid further delay and to promote the principle of speedy justice. Moreover, under the doctrine of limine control developed by this Court in Asif Saleem v. Chairman BOG University of Lahore and others (PLD 2019 Lahore 407) for early and expeditious disposal of a case, the Court can decide the matter at limine stage on the basis of material/documents available on the record/file and without issuing notice to other side so that the party concerned may not face inconvenience or monetary loss in approaching this Court. 5. Admittedly, the Appellants have filed a suit for declaration, recovery and permanent injunction along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction but the Civil Court has "turned down" their request for grant of an ad-interim relief through the impugned order dated 12.06.2025. Without discussing the reasons/grounds taken by the Civil Court for "turning down" the Appellants' request for grant of temporary injunction, significant to mention here is that the terminology "turned down" is not used in deciding an application Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and the Civil Court should accept or dismiss it. If a quick glance is taken on the provisions contained in Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., it will elucidate that the Court may grant a temporary injunction to restrain a party from committing an act that could cause injury to the other party or damage to the subject matter of the suit on specific terms, such as duration, keeping an account or providing security. In the case of Shariq Builders and Property Advisors v. Dr. Muhammad Faisal Murad and others (2024 MLD 32), this Court has already discussed and elaborated these provisions of C.P.C. 6. In view of the above, since the impugned order suffers from a legal lacuna, it cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set-aside. The Appellants' application for grant of temporary injunction will be deemed to be pending before the Civil Court which will decide the same afresh strictly as per law. Disposed of. UN/F-12/L Order accordingly.

Summary: Employment--- ----Contractual employment---Extension in service, seeking of---Filing of a repeated representation after exhausting available remedies---Legality and permissibility---Maintainability of representation in circumstances---Briefly, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis in the Livestock and Dairy Development Department in 2010 pursuant to an advertisement---Their salaries were initially withheld but later released after verification of the recruitment process---Upon completion of the contract period, an inquiry into the appointments was conducted, which declared the recruitment unlawful, leading to non-extension of their contracts and discontinuation of services, though they were paid salaries for the period served---The petitioners thereafter filed multiple representations, writ petitions, appeals and related proceedings seeking regularization and reinstatement, all of which culminated in rejection of their claims and finally the impugned order was passed which was challenged through the present constitutional petition---Held: There was no vested right to seek extension in service---Further, when the contract appointments were not extended, there was no question for regularization of services of the petitioners---No remedy was available to the petitioners to file a fresh representation for reopening the matter which had attained finality after withdrawal of their appeal from the Supreme Court---Hence, the petitioners had no lawful right to reopen a closed and past transaction---Representation at first was not maintainable on which the impugned order was unlawfully passed---Constitutional petition being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances. Ministry of IPC through Secretary and others v. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others 2014 SCMR 1573 and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chattha 2013 SCMR 120 rel. Saif ur Rehman Jasra for Petitioners. Barrister Zargham Lakhesar, A.A.G. along with Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th June, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- -Ss. 42, 54 & 55-Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), 42-Suit for declaration with perpetual and mandatory injunction-Oral gift subsequently translated into mutation-Fraud-Exclusion of sisters/respondents from their right of inheritance-Essential ingredients of gift-Proof-Non-mentioning of necessary details as to offer and acceptance of gift in the written statement or evidence-Effect-Evidence beyond the scope of pleadings-Admissibility-Suit of respondents/plaintiffs was decreed, however, the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners/defendants were dismissed by the Appellate and Revisional Court, respectively-Validity-Basic ingredients of a valid gift are: offer, acceptance and delivery of possession-No descriptions of making of offer as to gifting out of the disputed property to the petitioners by the donor, acceptance thereof by them, venue and names of witnesses in whose presence such transaction took place, had been given, which were necessary to be pleaded and proved - Even the same had not been deposed during evidence either by the petitioners or their witnesses-A party cannot lead any evidence beyond its pleadings-No illegality was found in the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court as well as judgments and decrees passed by the trial and first Appellate Court warranting interference by Supreme Court-Thus, no case for grant of leave was made out-Leave was refused, in circumstances. Bilal Hussain Shah and another v. Dilawar Shah PLD 2018 SC 698; Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1986; Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2025 SCMR 955; Zulfiqar and others v. Shahdat Khan PLD 2007 SC 582; Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914; Combined Investment (Pvt.) Limited v. Wali Bhai and others PLD 2016 SC 730 and Saddaruddin (since deceased) through LRs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through LRs and others 2021 SCMR 642 rel. (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)- -S. 42(7)-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)-Oral gift-Mutation-Independent transactions having two part-Burden of proof-Failure of the petitioners/donees to prove transactions of gift and mutation independently being beneficiary thereof-Effect-Petitioners instead of proving the gift and mutation thriving on the shortcomings of the evidence of respondents-Held: Oral gift has two parts i.e.firstly the fact of the oral gift which has to be independently established by proving through cogent and reliable evidence the three necessary ingredients of a valid gift, and secondly mutation on the basis of an oral gift has to be independently established and proved by adopting procedure provided in the Land Revenue Act, 1967, as well as the evidentiary aspects of the same in terms of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984-Petitioners could not lead any cogent, strong, unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence with regards to first part of alleged oral gift-Petitioners could not produce the stamp vendor, scribe, marginal witnesses, identifying witness, sub-registrar and revenue officials as well as Patwari, meaning thereby the best available evidence was withheld by the petitioners, which raised a serious adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984-Matters pertained to inheritable property, so the petitioners being alleged donees were under heavy burden to prove valid execution of oral gift because he could not take benefit from the shortcomings in the evidence of respondents, rather he had to stand on his own legs-Leave to appeal was refused, in circumstances. Mushtaq Ul Aarifin and others v. Mumtaz Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 55; Mst. Parveen (deceased) through LRs. v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64; Mst. Hayat Bibi and others v. Alamzeb and others 2022 SCMR 13; Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Rafiq 2002 SCMR 1291; Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 276; Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Sakina Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 1021; Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her LRs and others 2021 SCMR 73 and Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and another 2021 SCMR 179 rel. (c) Gift- -Mutation-Failure of donees to assign reasons prompting the donor to gift out the property to exclusion of female/daughters-Effect-No reason prompting the donor to gift out the disputed property to the petitioners, excluding his daughters (lawful heirs), had been impleaded, asserted and proved by the petitioners in their pleadings (written statement) and evidence - It is rare for a gift to be made without some reasons like affection or in reward of some sincere service. Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail 2002 SCMR 1938 and Faqir Ali and others v. Saina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85 rel.